D
dvdjs
Guest
The facts that have already been repeated on this thread, and stated over and over again on related threads.
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
That may be your experience, but in fact what you forgot is the ascetical aspect.
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
Perhaps you could explain why (or direct me to an explanation). You are reading early Church writings from an entirely modern and innovative perspective. Divorce in the early Church was handled in civil court, which meant civil law and ecclesiastical law coincided (see symphonia). St. Cyril of Alexandria :
"“It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”
Seeing as the early Church admitted the possibility of marriage dissolution, why would it not follow that remarriage is also possible.
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
Non sequitur. Asceticism has nothing to do with whether or not NFP is different from artificial contraception. Would you agree that the purpose of NFP is to avoid/prevent pregnancy?
D
dvdjs
Guest
This subject has been discussed many, many times, here at CAF - mostly in the Eastern Catholic forum - and in illuminating threads elsewhere that are linked in CAF threads. There is nothing innovative or modern in my understanding of the history of divorce an remarriage in the EOC. Indeed your Patristical proof-texting, ungrounded by the facts of historical practice, might be considered innovative if it weren’t so common in these times.
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
Ok, show me where this has been discussed. You made a claim (that St. Gregory specifically excluded the idea of remarriage after divorce from his understanding) and I am asking you to substantiate this.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Huh? I did not make a conclusion, just an observation. No chain of logic in an observation, so “non seqitur” is not appropriate.
On the contrary, asceticism is obviously one criterion, among many, by why NFP and artificial contraception may readily be differentiated.
I agree that a purpose of NFP may be, at the time to avoid/prevent pregnancy. (I, of course, could not say in individual cases if that were the only purpose, or if the aim were permanent.) Indeed complete abstinence would have the effect, and could have among its purposes, the avoidance/prevention of pregnancy. Your point, however, eludes me.
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
they still say hes a heretic otherwise…
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think what Bluegoat was trying to say is that the icon is improperly done, which if true, makes it just a painted piece of wood, not an icon. If it’s not done in the proper style, then the icon is not fit for public or private veneration. In other words, because it’s done improperly, I wouldn’t trust it as a statement on the position of the Orthodox Church.
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
Why is it improperly done?
or how can you tell?
I remember years back a greek friend of mine and his mother who were from the Ecumenical Patriachate,had a huge icon of this in his Living room.
but i know that doesnt mean anything if its truly improper…
T
theistgal
Guest
The Orthodox who painted that picture (not a real icon) was perhaps simply expressing an opinion based on the undeniable historical fact that some popes have been less than charitable towards them in the past.
Most Catholics freely acknowledge that not all our Popes have been as good and saintly as those we have been blessed with in more recent times.
The very Catholic Dante in his “Inferno” described corrupt popes and bishops in the lower circles of hell! So it’s certainly not a new opinion.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Icons are very strictly scripted, because they are meant to be a depiction of Orthodox teaching. Whoever created this one put in a number of items - not just the Pope but Martin Luther and others - that are not in the script. This is not something that is looked upon indulgently, it is a bit like changing Scripture slightly to advance one’s own theological views.
Are you sure it was this precise icon? This is a version of one that is a real icon, but without the additions? Mind you it wouldn’t surprise me, but if the fellow had this on his wall it certainly tells something personal about his views rather than what the OC teaches.
L
L_piperatus
Guest
(bolded emphasis mine in the quote above)
If I understand this correctly, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches both start from the same patristic teachings, from the same Early Church Fathers, and yet they come to fundamentally different conclusions.
The EO solution to those couples who are not capable of dealing with the consequences of sexual activity is something like this: use some form of contraception while having sex, or get yourself some form of surgical sterilization (vasectomy, tubal ligation).
In contrast, the Catholic solution for such couples is this: if you are not capable of dealing with the consequences of sexual intercourse, then just stay abstinent. However, under no circumstances are you allowed to use contraception (contraception = any method used to frustrate the natural consequence of the sexual intercourse; abstinence and periodic abstinence or NFP are not contraception according to Catholic teaching), and you are also forbidden from having yourself surgically sterilized.
Now I really wonder what did a Bishop John Chrysostom, or Bishop Augustine of Hippo allow in his diocese sixteen centuries ago - that’s where the rubber hits the road. Did they say to a couple, “Go, you can have sex, and drink some potion to make you sterile, or have surgery to make you sterile”, or did they say, in contrast, “Under no circumstances whatsoever are you allowed to drink potions, use condoms, or have yourself sterilized. Stay abstinent if you can’t afford to have children”.
A
adrift
Guest
Just a small point. NFP is about knowing when you are fertile and using that knowledge to either attain pregnancy or avoid it. Artificial contraception is ONLY about preventing. In reality there is a huge difference. It is the same difference as murder is to killing someone in self defense. It is the intent of what is done.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Sorry, I missed this post, as it appeared in between two successive posts that I made.
Here is what I said:
The idea of “specifically” excluded is your own invention. My conclusion is based on the time-line: when did St Gregory write these words? when was a church remarriage after divorce permitted in the EOC?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
No, I don’t think you have set up the problem correctly. What you have is a couple who for some good reason is not able to accept the possibility of bearing children; but they are also unable to manage abstinence because of their own weakness. Maybe it will lead to serious marital discord, or other forms of sexual sin, or whatever.
So the Orthodox couple may be given permission to use some other type of birth control while of course they also try to grow more spiritually able to do better. They are of course fasting and so on, probably also from sex at times, to try and achieve this.
The Catholic couple, OTOH, are forbidden to use artificial methods, but allowed to use NFP which includes abstinence but is somewhat less effective at preventing pregnancy. Use of NFP is at their own discretion. They will probably use ABC in any case however and there is a good chance their priest will not mind.
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
Implication. Your post was a response, not stand-alone statement.
But asceticism has no connection with the meaning and purpose of NFP. Non-procreative sex is the fundamental act, which bears no distinction between it’s artificial cousin.
My point is that NFP sex and artificially contracepted sex are, for all intents and purposes, identical. A couple having sex during the infertile period and a couple having sex with a condom are engaging in the exact same activity with the same lack of consequences (conception). Neither of these activities can be viewed as inherently “good”. but they are nonetheless condoned as is remarriage.
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
Yes it was that icon,i remember seeing the pope on it
yes his views were pretty hardline orthodox,or whatever you want to call it,fanatical or strict orthodox kind of thing,where only his church was the truth and everyone else is wrong
ive got no time for people like that anymore,and much of the orthodox i knew were kind of like this so ive left them behind
but the Orthodox brothers here are good guys
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
If you don’t mind me asking, where in the world did you hear the Orthodox approve of surgical sterilization for those wishing to avoid conception?
Abstinence is not Roman Catholic teaching.
As I have demonstrated above, NFP is contraceptive in nature, which makes it no different than artificial contraception in both means and purpose.
They recommend abstinence, but they also recommended not getting married and having sex in the first place. Do you understand the concept of oikonomia and its relation to the individual?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Not for all intents and purposes. Only when stretched and twisted to suit an agenda.
- Status