Certainly NFP can be used to that mean, but the contraceptive aspect of NFP is no different than artificial methods, because it shares the same purpose and intent.
The Church has always permitted divorce on certain grounds, so it follows that remarriage would be condoned in light of the fact that the first was dissolved.
It is an Orthodox icon (I actually own one myself). While it certainly isn’t “politically correct”, the practice of depicting those opposed to Orthodoxy is not unheard of. For example, go look at the icons of the Ecumenical Councils. They very often depict Arius, Nestorius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, etc. in a rather unsavory light.
You appeal to logic does not change actual facts.
Then correct my understanding. You begin with the assumption that St. Gregory excluded divorced persons from the possibility of remarriage, yet you provide no patristic evidence to back this claim. In other words, you are reading modern Roman Catholic moral theology into the writings of the fathers without grounds for it.
I see this differently. To my mind, the great difference is that the Orthodox couple receive permission from their priest (spiritual director) to use a technical method (condom, non-abortive birth control drug, surgical sterilization such as vasectomy) in order to frustrate the consequences of sex while having sex with each other, but the Catholic couple never receive such permission from their Catholic priest. The Catholic couple are free to abstain (fast from sexual activity), but that’s it. They are not free to have sex while simultaneously frustrating the normal physiological consequences of sex through such methods as barriers, condoms, birth control drugs, or surgical sterilization of the spouses, because they never received permission from the Catholic Church to do so.
I have pointed out your misunderstanding. now do your own homework. The issue here has not a blessed thing to do with Roman Catholic moral theology. Rather it is your lack of knowledge of history of actual Orthodox practice - however you might like to proof-text the fathers. You assume far too much about me, and reflect far too little on your own thinking.
There was a lady from California on this forum, attending the Greek EOC. She posted the story of her friend, who was a mother of 8 children, and has been warned by doctors that her next pregnancy could cost her her life. The spiritual director of the couple gave his blessing to the husband in this case to obtain surgical sterilization (vasectomy).
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
I don’t think it makes sense to compare the permission to marry for those who can’t abstain, with the permission to use ABC for those married people who can’t abstain and also don’t want to have children. Marriage is not a sin (see St. Paul in the New Testament and writings by many ECF), whereas ABC and castration (the closest thing to modern surgical methods of sterilization) are invariably condemned by the ECF as grave sins on a par with murder, sins that will damn the souls of the unrepentant to hell.
I disagree. It is not a contraceptive. There is nothing wrong with not having sex. Paul even said it was a good thing. The only wrong intent is never to have children. It is different because the intent is to still be open to life not the case with true contraception.
From: copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/6_matrimony.html
Of course they do.
Interestingly, this position is advanced by some “ultra Traditionalist” Catholics. Their conclusion, however, is different: abstinence only for controlling number of children.
Homework for what? You have provided no evidence for your claims, only assumptions. Early Church history is riddled with numerous emperors remarrying following divorce. In fact, St. Basil permitted it in the case of adultery.
Interesting.
I think there were more than enough barbarians to go around.The Orthodox occassionally forget that in the west, we have got to deal with barbarians.
The pressing concerns of war and domination acted as a check on that kind of heresy in the east.
Passing off the words of a priest as Orthodox teaching is pretty disingenuous. Where I to do likewise with the Roman Catholic Church, I could say with confidence that your church teaches the existence of limbo, the absolute damnation of all not communion with Rome, etc.
When the Fathers equated contraception with murder, it was always in reference to “potions” (i.e. abortifacients). Condoms (and the like) are really not comparable.
And Orthodoxy teaches this exact point. Contraception may not be used for entirely selfish reasons (i.e. the complete exclusion of children).
That is from a monophysite website, not an Orthodox one (regardless of their usage of the word). On the subject of the fathers though, St. Basil :
What is the Catholic response to this? Was St. Basil wrong?
You realize that it include the Ecumenical Patriarch among the heretics?
I am not sure what Rome’s response to it is, but it seems to be an accepted teaching within the Melkite Catholic Church, or at least by Archbishop Joseph Raya (who uses it in his book, Crowning: The Christian Marriage). Perhaps some of our Melkite Catholic posters could shed some light on the matter.