Orthodox Unchanged?

[dominikus28]

“The Orthodox Church remains unchanged in doctrine and faith since the early Church of the Apostles”
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/questions.html

This makes me wonder - hasn’t the Orthodox Church accepted contraception within marriage as moral? The Church fathers and all Christian religions were against contraception in all situations until 1930 when the Anglican Church caved. How do Orthodox defend this?

 

[runningdude]

While not Orthodox myself, I found a forum (but lost the link ) that said that the Orthodox view is not well defined. It may have its origins in the principals of “divine economy” a concept with no direct parallel in Catholicism.

The justification, paraphrased, is that the subjective guilt of a married couple using contraception could not be enough to send them to hell. It doesn’t mean contraception isn’t a grave matter. It doesn’t mean one has a perfect relationship with Christ. It simply means one (or two?) isn’t barred from communion for choosing to use contraception.

It seems to me that it isn’t so much that the Orthodox Church per se suddenly changed its mind and said its acceptable, more that it chose to not harshly punish this sin. Use also seems to be more prevalent in western cultures rather than eastern cultures, which maybe a sign of a clash between western culture and eastern spirituality.

Mind you, this is based off a source I can’t relocate (due to a browser crash), and its an outsider’s interpretation, but maybe helps.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

“The Orthodox Church remains unchanged in doctrine and faith since the early Church of the Apostles”
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/questions.html

This makes me wonder - hasn’t the Orthodox Church accepted contraception within marriage as moral? The Church fathers and all Christian religions were against contraception in all situations until 1930 when the Anglican Church caved. How do Orthodox defend this?

Because contraception is neither encouraged, nor is it considered beneficial. It is a concession granted to people who are not yet capable of bearing the full burden that accompanies sexual intercourse. This is comparable to the concession of marriage (which is granted to those who cannot bear the celibate life).

As runningdude mentioned, you must understand the Orthodox principle of oikonomia to understand our position. Canons exists within the Church to assist men in their salvation. This is comparable to a general medical consensus. A spiritual father (who is spiritual doctor) will prescribe particular medications in the fight against the illness of sin. This may include the strictest interpretation of the canons, or this may involve a more lenient one. God meets us where we are able, and it is the duty of the spiritual father to determine where that is.

Contraception is by no means a good thing. What the Church grants is assistance to those who struggle. This is comparable to the Roman Catholic allowance of NFP (a natural form of contraception), which is permitted to those, who, for whatever reason, are incapable of bearing the full consequences of the sexual life (i.e. childbirth). We do not permit abortifacients under any circumstances, nor do we permit contraception as a means by which children may be selfishly avoided.

The Orthodox Church is entirely unchanged. We do not add new dogmas, nor do we edit what was previously believed. Orthodoxy is entirely patristic. If one wishes to understand what we believe, then he need do no more than read the fathers of the Church.

 

[Samuel63]

Sounds like they are, … not so orthodox.

In fact, if they were orthodox, they would be fully aligned with the Roman Catholic Church.

I have always found the title “orthodox” to be a little suspicious. It begs the question, “orthodox as compared to who?” When the group formed, there was only one other group around in the Christian realm - the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, they are claiming orthodoxy and by elimination inferring the roman catholic church is not orthodox.

The great schism. When will it end? When will we become one and be healed?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sounds like they are, … not so orthodox.

In fact, if they were orthodox, they would be fully aligned with the Roman Catholic Church.

I have always found the title “orthodox” to be a little suspicious. It begs the question, “orthodox as compared to who?” When the group formed, there was only one other group around in the Christian realm - the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, they are claiming orthodoxy and by elimination inferring the roman catholic church is not orthodox.

The great schism. When will it end? When will we become one and be healed?

When the group formed? You mean on Pentecost in 33 AD? I don’t think there was a Roman Catholic Church back then, only the One Church which Jesus left to His Apostles.

Excuse me for making such a polemical statement above, but even the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox bishops, so I’m not sure why you would try to make it look like we magically appeared out of thin air after the great schism when we too can clearly trace the beginning of our Church to the glorious day of Pentecost. Surely, you do not like it when people call into question the origin of your Church, so please pay us the same courtesy. We simply call ourselves the Orthodox Church, because we believe that we are orthodox in doctrine; there is no slight intended, just as the Roman Catholic Church identifying itself as being “catholic” does not mean to slight other Churches as somehow being less catholic, but simply reflects the Roman Catholic belief that their Church is catholic.

And for what it’s worth, by the time of the mutual anathemas of 1054, there were three groups in Christendom. There was the group of churches which is now known as the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Church of the East (now known as the Assyrian Church of the East), and the Churches which accepted the Seven Ecumenical Councils (which then split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church). It is also worth noting that all of these Churches referred to themselves and still do refer to themselves as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[dvdjs]

“The Orthodox Church remains unchanged in doctrine and faith since the early Church of the Apostles”
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/questions.html

This makes me wonder - hasn’t the Orthodox Church accepted contraception within marriage as moral? The Church fathers and all Christian religions were against contraception in all situations until 1930 when the Anglican Church caved. How do Orthodox defend this?

The quoted statement from the ocf link is just nonsense. If one were to apply a extremely narrow working definition to “doctrine” and to “faith” one might almost make this statement work.

The claim of Apostolic provenance is undisputed. But aside from that there has certainly been a development of understanding of the faith given through the Apostles, and a development of the articulation of that faith. There has certainly been development in the area of moral theology, in particular in the areas that you point out: divorce and ABC. Their sense of ecclesiology has vary greatly over time, bith internally and in its relations with other churches over the past millenium. Even the liturgy has developed substantially, not just from Apostolic age, but also from the Patristic age - and, btw, those ages should not be confused as being the same. Reading the Fathers is not eeading the Apostles. Moreover the place of the Fathers in delineating Orthodox belief, that also has changed over time. We happen to be living in a time, just removed from “Western Captivity”, in which a new, patristic synthesis is emphasized. (cf thread on the “Myth of Schism” in the eastern Catholic forum).

Don’t know why this point is mythologized so steadfastly by the Orthodox. The kool-aid claims detract from its beauty.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I think it’s extremely difficult, if no almost impossible, to really challenge the assertion that the Orthodox are unchanged.

I’ve never been able to find anything that can reasonably be constituted as a doctrinal innovation.

 

[dvdjs]

I think it’s extremely difficult, if no almost impossible, to really challenge the assertion that the Orthodox are unchanged.

I’ve never been able to find anything that can reasonably be constituted as a doctrinal innovation.

The degree of difficulty depends entirely on how narrowly you define “doctrinal” and “innovation”.

Is the OP off base to talk of moral doctrine regarding divorce? If not it, then it is reasonable to point to the remarriage in the church after a divorce - an innovation introduced (by action of the Emperor) some 900 years after the Apostles.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The degree of difficulty depends entirely on how narrowly you define “doctrinal” and “innovation”.

Is the OP off base to talk of moral doctrine regarding divorce? If not it, then it is reasonable to point to the remarriage in the church after a divorce - an innovation introduced (by action of the Emperor) some 900 years after the Apostles.

That’s kind of small change compared to the Catholic Church dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, honestly. We could add the concept of venial and mortal sin, which the Orthodox never accepted, as another example.

I don’t think even in terms of moral argument, the Catholic Church has much for which to accuse the Orthodox. In practical terms, what is the difference between a Catholic annulment and an Orthodox divorce? That the Catholic one is more difficult to obtain?

 

[dvdjs]

That’s kind of small change compared to the Catholic Church dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, honestly. We could add the concept of venial and mortal sin, which the Orthodox never accepted, as another example.

I don’t think even in terms of moral argument, the Catholic Church has much for which to accuse the Orthodox. In practical terms, what is the difference between a Catholic annulment and an Orthodox divorce? That the Catholic one is more difficult to obtain?

First: I don’t think that this is a small change. Remarriage in the church was not allowable for nearly a millenium, not merely by discipline, but because of its immorality. Then it became OK.

Second: How did this become a question of comparison to the Catholic church? The link and quote in the OP was not about small changes or relatively small changes as compared to the Catholic church. It was a claim of remaining “unchanged”. You yourself added:

I think it’s extremely difficult, if no almost impossible, to really challenge the assertion that the Orthodox are unchanged.

Unchanged.

I think that by shifting relatively small changes, you implicitly agree that the claim of remaining unchanged is phoney.

I won’t debate the big and small, but would remind you that numerous dogmatic definitions were made in the councils accepted by the Eastern Orthodox. If post-apostolic dogmatization is “big” change, then there are a lots of big changes in Orthodoxy. The EOs, btw certainly adhere to the Assumption and to the sinlessness of Mary - notwithstanding the protests of a very modernists.

As a Catholic, I am not at all comfortable with the clear abuse of the annulment process in the contemporary American Catholic church. However mush abused this process is, it is very dissimilar to divorce in very important way: it does not flout the revealed teaching of Christ.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Maybe the Orthodox have changed with their relationship with the Pope and the Roman Church.

Before they accepted Rome and being in union with the Chief Pastor,now they cry that the Roman Church is full of heresy and innovation/error,

Now the Pope for them is a heretic and all his followers too.

Heres an icon from Orthodoxy ,displaying the Pope standing with the enemies of the Church alongside antichrist and other enemies-

uncutmountainsupply.com/proddetail.asp?prod=GML11

 

[L_piperatus]

I would be interested in knowing whether the early undivided Church allowed contraception and/or sterilization, in a fashion similar to how the Eastern Orthodox Churches allow today both of these practices (contraception and sterilization) as a form of economy.

I did a small google search for “contraception early church fathers” and here are some relevant hits containing the teachings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) on these issues:

catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

staycatholic.com/ecf_contraception.htm

According to the information in the websites above, ECF universally condemned contraception and sterilization. I see quotes from Saints Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Lactantius, the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, Epiphanius of Salamis, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Caesarius of Arles, all condemning contraception and sterilization.

I will only quote Caesarius of Arles, but anyone interested please visit the links given for the teachings of the other ECF.

**“Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman” (Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]). **

It just seems utterly incompatible to me the vision according to which “As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell.”, with the vision of the contemporary EOC which allows both contraception and surgical sterilization as a form of economy, or concession to human weakness. I mean, how could a priest or spiritual director allow and give his blessing to people doing that which will damn them to eternal death in hell? It seems to me that either the Early Church Fathers listed were in error when they made their statements, or the EOC of today is in error.

I also quoted Caesarius of Arles above, because he talks about chastity (abstinence from sexual relations), which is the basis for the Catholic Church’s teaching that periodic abstinence (as practiced in NFP) is not sinful, whereas artificial contraception is.

I also wonder, has the EOC ever issued any condemnations of the teachings of the ECF such as St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom and others, given how strongly these ECF condemn contraception and sterilization, and seeing how the practice of the EOC today, allowing contraception and sterilization, is in flagrant contradiction with the teachings of these and other ECF? I mean, wouldn’t it be logical for the Eastern Orthodox Church today to condemn these ECF as being in error?

Also, are there any other Early Church Fathers who, in contrast to the ones given in the links above, taught that abortion and sterilization are allowable as a form of economy? Can anyone provide references to ECF allowing contraception and sterilization? Or perhaps Canon Laws from the Early Church period, allowing contraception and sterilization?

I found something pointing in the opposite direction, namely part of the New Testament and the Didache which many scholars interpret today as forbidding contraception:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HISTCONT.HTM

quote:

**The early Christian community upheld the sanctity of marriage, marital love and human life. In the New Testament, the word “pharmakeia” appears, which some scholars link to the birth control issue. “Pharmakeia” denotes the mixing of potions for secretive purposes, and from Soranos and others, evidence exists of artificial birth control potions. Interestingly, “Pharmakeia” is sometimes translated as “sorcery” in English. In three passages in which “pharmakeia” appears, other sexual sins are also condemned: lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness, orgies “and the like” (e.g. Gal 5:19-21). This evidence highlights that the early Church condemned anything which violated the integrity of marital love.

Further evidence is found in the Didache, also called the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written about the year 80 A.D. This book was the Church’s first manual of morals, liturgical norms and doctrine. In the first section two ways are proposed: the way of life and the way of death. In following the way of life, the exhorts, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods…” Again, scholars link such phrases as “practice magic” and “use potions” with artificial birth control.**

 

[Bluegoat]

Maybe the Orthodox have changed with their relationship with the Pope and the Roman Church.

Before they accepted Rome and being in union with the Chief Pastor,now they cry that the Roman Church is full of heresy and innovation/error,

Now the Pope for them is a heretic and all his followers too.

Heres an icon from Orthodoxy ,displaying the Pope standing with the enemies of the Church alongside antichrist and other enemies-

uncutmountainsupply.com/proddetail.asp?prod=GML11

Now, that icon is not a proper icon you know. That is not supposed to be how that icon is done. It is, I would say, an icon by schismatics of some kind.

 

[Bluegoat]

That’s kind of small change compared to the Catholic Church dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, honestly. We could add the concept of venial and mortal sin, which the Orthodox never accepted, as another example.

I don’t think even in terms of moral argument, the Catholic Church has much for which to accuse the Orthodox. In practical terms, what is the difference between a Catholic annulment and an Orthodox divorce? That the Catholic one is more difficult to obtain?

I’m not sure that Catholic annulment is more difficult necessarily to obtain, if we understand that the real issue is permission to remarry.

But the Orthodox do accept that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven upon her death.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

The degree of difficulty depends entirely on how narrowly you define “doctrinal” and “innovation”.

Is the OP off base to talk of moral doctrine regarding divorce? If not it, then it is reasonable to point to the remarriage in the church after a divorce - an innovation introduced (by action of the Emperor) some 900 years after the Apostles.

Nope, the Church has always understood remarriage to be a matter of oikonomia (despite looking down upon it) :

“If there were two Christs, there would be two husbands, or two wives; since Christ is one–the one head of the Church–there is one flesh also; the second should be rejected. And if you forbid a second marriage, would you allow a third? The first is legal, the second is condoned, the third is illegitimate, and that which is beyond is swine-like.”

• St Gregory the Theologian

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

I will only quote Caesarius of Arles, but anyone interested please visit the links given for the teachings of the other ECF.

**“Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman” (Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]). **

It just seems utterly incompatible to me the vision according to which “As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell.”, with the vision of the contemporary EOC which allows both contraception and surgical sterilization as a form of economy, or concession to human weakness. I mean, how could a priest or spiritual director allow and give his blessing to people doing that which will damn them to eternal death in hell? It seems to me that either the Early Church Fathers listed were in error when they made their statements, or the EOC of today is in error.

And the Church does not permit the use if “potions” (i.e.abortifacients). We very much understand the murderous nature of such things.

I also quoted Caesarius of Arles above, because he talks about chastity (abstinence from sexual relations), which is the basis for the Catholic Church’s teaching that periodic abstinence (as practiced in NFP) is not sinful, whereas artificial contraception is.

No, NFP is about purposely partaking in sexual intercourse during the infertile period to avoid/prevent pregnancy. In reality, this is no different than artificial contraception.

Also, are there any other Early Church Fathers who, in contrast to the ones given in the links above, taught that abortion and sterilization are allowable as a form of economy? Can anyone provide references to ECF allowing contraception and sterilization? Or perhaps Canon Laws from the Early Church period, allowing contraception and sterilization?

I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head. I could also ask you : Do you know of any Church fathers who expressed support for calendar-based contraception (i.e. NFP)? While not directly discussed, both would fall under category of oikonomia (Matthew 18:18). There wouldn’t be any canons on the matter because oikonomia is “extra-canonical”.

 

[dvdjs]

Nope, the Church has always understood remarriage to be a matter of oikonomia (despite looking down upon it) :

“If there were two Christs, there would be two husbands, or two wives; since Christ is one–the one head of the Church–there is one flesh also; the second should be rejected. And if you forbid a second marriage, would you allow a third? The first is legal, the second is condoned, the third is illegitimate, and that which is beyond is swine-like.”

• St Gregory the Theologian

Was St Gregory the Theologian talking, as I was, about remarriage in the church after divorce? Nope.

 

[dvdjs]

A
NFP is about purposely partaking in sexual intercourse during the infertile period to avoid/prevent pregnancy. In reality, this is no different than artificial contraception.

That’s completely backwards. NFP is about agreeing to abstain during likely fertile times. The difference should be immediately clear to any married person.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Was St Gregory the Theologian talking, as I was, about remarriage in the church after divorce? Nope.

What leads you to this conclusion?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

That’s completely backwards. NFP is about agreeing to abstain during likely fertile times. The difference should be immediately clear to any married person.

That is only part of NFP. It is easy to forget that the principle reason behind NFP is non-procreative sex.