Orthodox accept artificial contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnityofTrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hesychios said:
The Roman Catholic church has chosen to nullify it’s own sacraments, or rather to declare it’s own sacrament to have always been null from the beginning. This is convenient in that once the marriage ‘not-really’ fails, both partners ‘not-really’ can get remarried under the system regardless of who was at fault and who was the injured partner** ‘not-really’**.

🙂
Click to expand...
I feel you when it comes to that. I am not exactly comfortable with the annulments, but anyway.

What is your response to the change in teaching on contraception?
 
Cavaradossi said:
As if the annulment factories do not do the same thing. But perhaps the Catholic Church really believes that it possesses the power to cleave two who were one flesh because of some perceived defect during the sacrament of matrimony, and declare that the marriage never happened (how that can possibly nullify the fact that the two still had sexual relations, and that they are engaging in adultery should they marry again is beyond me).

Oy Vey!
Click to expand...
Because the Church only witnesses a the sacrament of Marriage. It is administered by the partners to each other. For the marriage to be valid, both parties must know and accept the vows. If one person has no intent on being monogamous, then the sacrament is not valid, b/c all the terms were not met. If a “shot gun” or forced wedding occurs, it is not valid since it is not freely entered into.

This is the same with any sacrament, if the terms are not met. If a deacon tried to baptize someone with Coca Cola, it would not meet the terms and would not be a valid baptism.

You said, " (how that can possibly nullify the fact that the two still had sexual relations, and that they are engaging in adultery should they marry again is beyond me).". I guess I don’t follow. The Church doesn’t say that once you have sex, you are married. Any sex outside of a valid marriage is sinful. Could you explain this? It appears by your post that if two become one flesh physically, that makes them married.
 
Hesychios said:
The Roman Catholic church has chosen to nullify it’s own sacraments, or rather to declare it’s own sacrament to have always been null from the beginning. This is convenient in that once the marriage ‘not-really’ fails, both partners ‘not-really’ can get remarried under the system regardless of who was at fault and who was the injured partner** ‘not-really’**.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken on annulments. In order for a marriage to be annulled, it cannot be a valid marriage. An annulment is an official statement that the marriage was never valid because it does not meet the terms. If the terms were met, it cannot be considered for annulment. This cannot take place after a valid marriage takes place, the reason for annulment must take place before the “marriage” occurs. To say that the Church annuls valid marriages is completely incorrect.

I am still unclear how the Orthodox would be able to allow a second marriage, does it apply to valid marriages? If so, then the sacrament could not have left an indelible mark on the souls of those involved. I guess I thought that was the purpose of that sacrament.:confused:
 
Jim_Dandy said:
I found it equally shocking that the Orthodox Churches permit two divorces and three marriages, disregarding Jesus’s teaching that remarriage after divorce in the case of a valid marriage is adultery. The Orthodox clergy actually advise their members to live in adultery.

Oy veh!
Click to expand...
Okay, in the Eastern Catholic Church, marriage is seen as the same (we have different theology on Matrimony than the Roman Catholic Church) that marriage is eternal. When the spouse dies and the other one marries again, that is still considered a second marriage.
 
Perhaps a bit off topic, but to Eastern Catholics tend toward the Orthodox or Latin position on cremation?
 
Newsy said:
Because the Church only witnesses a the sacrament of Marriage. It is administered by the partners to each other. For the marriage to be valid, both parties must know and accept the vows. If one person has no intent on being monogamous, then the sacrament is not valid, b/c all the terms were not met. If a “shot gun” or forced wedding occurs, it is not valid since it is not freely entered into.

This is the same with any sacrament, if the terms are not met. If a deacon tried to baptize someone with Coca Cola, it would not meet the terms and would not be a valid baptism.

You said, " (how that can possibly nullify the fact that the two still had sexual relations, and that they are engaging in adultery should they marry again is beyond me).". I guess I don’t follow. The Church doesn’t say that once you have sex, you are married. Any sex outside of a valid marriage is sinful. Could you explain this? It appears by your post that if two become one flesh physically, that makes them married.
Click to expand...
That is the difference in Matrimonial Theology between East and West. In the East, the priest is the only one who marries. The only way there can be a defect in the marriage is if the priest himself does something really wrong in the ceremony. So unlike the West where there are annulments, the East does not have annulments because the condition what makes a marriage null and void does not exists with the parties getting married but the priest. And the priests will rarely make mistakes when officiating a marriage.
 
Nine_Two said:
Perhaps a bit off topic, but to Eastern Catholics tend toward the Orthodox or Latin position on cremation?
Click to expand...
I would say in the middle. Eastern Catholics still prefer no cremation, but wouldn’t oppose one who is adamant on having one.
 
Newsy said:
You are mistaken on annulments. In order for a marriage to be annulled, it cannot be a valid marriage. An annulment is an official statement that the marriage was never valid because it does not meet the terms. If the terms were met, it cannot be considered for annulment.
Click to expand...
I am not mistaken, I said the same thing you did.

The church gives a declaration of nullity, admitting that in spite of vows before the altar the church certified an invalid ceremony, not a marriage.

Sadly, there are apparently millions of Roman Catholics out there that do not have valid marriages, and they will never know for sure unless their ‘spouse’ abandons or betrays them. For some people, lucky in having a faithful partner to live with, they may never know their marriage isn’t real and they may die while still cohabiting with a person they didn’t marry.
 
Hesychios said:
I am not mistaken, I said the same thing you did.

The church gives a declaration of nullity, admitting that in spite of vows before the altar the church certified an invalid ceremony, not a marriage.

Sadly, there are apparently millions of Roman Catholics out there that do not have valid marriages, and they will never know for sure unless their ‘spouse’ abandons or betrays them. For some people, lucky in having a faithful partner to live with, they may never know their marriage isn’t real and they may die while still cohabiting with a person they didn’t marry.
Click to expand...
This is true. Sometimes I worry myself. Yes, ignorance is bliss and its not a sin that I do not know if my marriage is valid or not. It would be crazy of me to seek annulment now and then get married again in the Eastern Rite, but deep down inside of me I want to do that 😉
 
TrueLight said:
Hello Dan,

Hope all is well with you and the kids as well. 🙂

I understand what you’ve posted. My comments are directed at the threads I have seen in the Eastern Catholic forum, where some EC’s have asked whether Eastern Catholics are expected to follow “Latin” doctrine.

I would love some Eastern Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut.
Click to expand...
My parish is Ukrainian Greek Catholic. I am not a trained theologian.

There is one faith. All Catholics of the various rites accept Catholic dogma and share this one faith. Discipline is another matter. Dogma is what we believe. Discipline is how we practice the faith. Disipline can change and be different from time to time or place to place.

So for example the order of the Mass was changed radically under Paul VI. That is a change in discipline. The faith was not always practiced as it is now. The practice or discipline of fasting during certain seasons has changed, as another example.

The apostles went out to various regions taking the same faith, the truths that Jesus taught to different areas. Different forms of worship with developed, but with certain similarities. This is not what we believe about God and man that are different, but how the faith is practiced.
 
Dan_Daly said:
I have looked into this same question, as I was very surprised and disturbed to hear the same thing.

The answer you will get is…it depends.

Yes some Orthodox do tolerate articial contraception.

Eastern Rite Catholics do not, as they are indeed Catholics.

The Orthodox describe themselves as “Catholic” but so do all sorts of people, it does not make it so. You will find it is very difficult to get an answer to questions along the lines of “What does the Orthodox Church teach about…?” Because different factions sometimes teach different things.

The Orthodox have much to teach us. In many cases they live more authentically orthodox lives than Catholics. However, the fact that some in their heirarchy can accept a grave evil like contraception does show the peril one places themselves in when they are seperated from Rome.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
I would have converted to Eastern Orthodoxy (not Eastern Catholicism). I spent about two years reading into the Orthodox Church. What finally was the tipping point was the complete teaching on the Sanctity of Life, including a total ban on artificial birth control by the Catholic Church. THat is what sold me. You can sleuth it out on OCA (Orthodox CHurch of America) sites on marriage and birth control.
 
Hesychios said:
I am not mistaken, I said the same thing you did.

The church gives a declaration of nullity, admitting that in spite of vows before the altar the church certified an invalid ceremony, not a marriage.

Sadly, there are apparently millions of Roman Catholics out there that do not have valid marriages, and they will never know for sure unless their ‘spouse’ abandons or betrays them. For some people, lucky in having a faithful partner to live with, they may never know their marriage isn’t real and they may die while still cohabiting with a person they didn’t marry.
Click to expand...
Not true. What the church in the West is experiencing now is a combination of many factors, and from the steps the church is taking, is likely to disappear completely (at least with couples married in the Catholic church)- but this discussion has gotten me curious about something I’ve apparently never thought to ask before regarding this issue. Do the Orthodox have any teaching/practice/history regarding annulments? Or is this one of those historical East/West divides from the earliest times where the East had divorce and the West annulments? I have a very superficial understanding of orthodox teaching on divorce-, but I don’t recall hearing anything at all about annulments- does it exist? (Genuine non-contentious question)
 
Hesychios said:
Sadly, there are apparently millions of Roman Catholics out there that do not have valid marriages, and they will never know for sure unless their ‘spouse’ abandons or betrays them. For some people, lucky in having a faithful partner to live with, they may never know their marriage isn’t real and they may die while still cohabiting with a person they didn’t marry.
Click to expand...
This a statement that applies to mankind. Their is no one aspect of Christianity absolved of this reality.

There are million’s of all aspects of Christianity in the West who have some ill-conceived idea and confuse Sacrament with Relationship.

Peace
 
GaryTaylor said:
This a statement that applies to mankind. Their is no one aspect of Christianity absolved of this reality.

There are million’s of all aspects of Christianity in the West who have some ill-conceived idea and confuse Sacrament with Relationship.

Peace
Click to expand...
Well, in the Eastern understanding, once the priest says you’re married, you are married. Doesn’t matter what you think marriage is or isn’t, doesn’t matter if there’s some pre-existing condition that you are unaware of. Of course there are some obvious things that can cause a marriage null and void in the East, such as if one or both of the parties concealed an existing marriage. In the West, there’s so many preconditions to a marriage, its possible that most marriages are not valid if they were to go through the tribunal. Let me put it this way, I have a friend who’s my age and when we were in our mid-20s, his dad got an annulment from his mom approved by the Church. That is after 3 full grown children and so many years of marriage. Okay, given they were on and off during that time and most of the time I’ve known my friend his parents were mostly separated. But their marriage have been “thought to be valid” for over 20 years. I don’t know how you can argue for the marriage to not have taken place after all that.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I have a friend who’s my age and when we were in our mid-20s, his dad got an annulment from his mom approved by the Church. That is after 3 full grown children and so many years of marriage. Okay, given they were on and off during that time and most of the time I’ve known my friend his parents were mostly separated. But their marriage have been “thought to be valid” for over 20 years. I don’t know how you can argue for the marriage to not have taken place after all that.
Click to expand...
“Thought to be Valid” being the objective term. Being mostly seperated implys many things.

Was there something missing right from the start, something radically wrong from day one? Before the wedding, were there warning signals, red flags which you may have dismissed simply as the cold-feet anxieties rather common for couples prior to a nuptial service? Did they suffer deep difficulties early in the marital life and worry about them, but, never having been married before, judged they were merely the expected burdensome part of marriage? Now, perhaps years later, they view them as symptomatic of a much more serious problem, a radical malfunctioning in the relationship, Which can conclude that the relationship was nothing more than an ill conceived vain idea of who knows what, probly some physical attraction, instead of a deeper involvement which was looking into the future, thus commitment. perhaps she was pregnant when she was married, pehaps they entertained a sexual relationship before marrige and felt some half-hearted commitment. Perhaps they never really wanted to be married but were talked into it through peer pressure?

Not sure I wasn’t there. But there’s a better understanding of the questions which would arrise.

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top