Orthodox Unchanged?

[Bluegoat]

You realize that it include the Ecumenical Patriarch among the heretics?

It isn’t considered an appropriate icon from what several people have told me. Here is a thread on monachos which mentions it specifically.

I’ve mispoken here - I gather it is actually the patriarch of Moscow. But he’s with the heretics for being interested in ecumenicism.

 

[Warrenton]

=Hesychios;8384385]Do you have any references to illustrate this?

If we’re referring to my hypothosis that Catholic Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was formulated to combat anti-Marian slander, I don’t have anything directly proving that. THe documents of the 19th century were not as “soul searching” as they are now. However, if one looks at how the popes have tended to operate, they often do the direct opposite of what the prevailing trends dictate.

I think it’s because the western flock is prone to inconstancy!

But, the notion came from something that Chesterton wrote - I’ll try to find it for you.

As for the so-called “scholarship” against the Blessed Virgin, I obtained the information about the denial of the magnificat from a Greek book called “Our Lady the Theotokos.” It’s in a footnote, comes from the mid/late 1800s, and the denial was written by a German.

The harlot/figment suggestions I have read in a number of places, I am certain some iteration of it is easily found on the internet. You are doubtless familiar with the kind of writing; about thirty years ago it was popularized in a book called “The Passover Plot.”

I think there were more than enough barbarians to go around.

To be sure - I was referring to barbarians of the modern variety, and did not mean to minimise the damage caused by Sarmatians, sea faring goths, or unruly Varangians!

By way of example, one can peruse, if one chooses, several threads about “neo paganism” on this fair forum. Greeks (and mediterranean people generally) may be deceived by Marxist promises from time to time, because they appear practical. But they are not about to go dancing around a statue of Bel any more than they cry over cats that fall off the fishing boats.

On a similar note, I surmise that is why the Greek Church has been slower to attack artificial birth control. Westerners began race suicide near 100 years ago. Again, mediterranean people might have done it on occassion, but in general, Yaya probably felt that any woman who did such things was hardly worthy of the name “woman.” I can’t imagine telling the “dervisi” down at the Tekhe that I was contemplating a vasectomy. IN light of the different character of the flock, Humanae Vitae comes into better focus, maybe.
Every good bishop fights chiefly the battles that confronts him.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

Now regarding the suggestion that “They [Catholics] will probably use ABC in any case however and there is a good chance their priest will not mind.”, this might be true for disobedient Catholics and disobedient priests who, sadly, are bound to hell and eternal damnation, just as there have been Catholic priests who sexually molested boys, and baptized Catholics who committed robbery, murder, abortion, and other grievous sins. The Catholic Church teaching the correct path to salvation is not a guarantee that all Catholics will listen and follow obediently, and occasionally we might even encounter some shepherds who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. That doesn’t take away from the essential role of the Catholic Church: point out the correct road to salvation, for such folks who want to listen and obey. Similarly, we had Judas the traitor among the 12 Apostles, but that didn’t negate the role of the primitive Church set up by Jesus Christ to serve as the Ark of Salvation, not for everyone, but again, for those willing to listen and obey.

It is certainly true that some people are just disobedient/uncaring. OTOH what we have in the Catholic Church with ABC includes some of the very faithful and active Catholics, not just the lax ones. I know some people who are considered generally to be “hard core” but who do not follow this rule because they just can’t see a way to do it. I know one who ended up leaving the Church as it seemed to be a matter of that, being dishonest as a Catholic, or losing her marriage. Something seems to have really failed with the way this issue is being dealt with, which is suggestive to me. It is not the case (I think) that otherwise committed Catholics are going out having abortions, murdering people, and so on.

An interesting question to is to what degree are they Orthodox in question already abstaining? And it seems to me too there is a different attitude to Orthodox economy to birth control (including NFP) and Catholic allowance of NFP. In the first case there is a real knowledge that this is a condensation to weakness that ideally needs to be overcome. In the second it is promoted almost as expected and necessary, and a response to outside circumstances. (So, in the former case “I use a form of birth control because I am not spiritually mature or strong enough for abstinence.” In the second"I use NFP because I am not able for health reasons to have a child now." I think the spiritual difference here is pretty clear.) In fact in the East the idea of an entirely celibate marriage seems much more positively seen than in the modern West.

And frankly I think this idea that NFP is not to be used with a “birth control mentality” simply puts people in an impossible situation. People using it to avoid conception are using to control their fertility. You are asking them to take two mutually exclusive positions at once, which is pretty unfair and potentially damaging.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

What I have written is factual - do you homework and check the facts. The inferences that you have drawn involve false assumptions and a bit of carelessness. For example, whereas I have been talking about remarriage in the church after divorce, you meander off that topic to other situations and obscure the point.

 

[L_piperatus]

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

This is not correct. The word “pharmakeia”, translated as “potions” in English, meant a variety of things including:

-contraceptive potions, potions causing sterility
-abortive potions
-potions used in occult practices (sorcery, magic)

The various intents and purposes also overlapped.

When the New Testament and the Didache condemn “pharmakeia” or “potions”, they condemn all of the above.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches today flount the teachings of the NT and the Didache, that is they changed their teachings.

Also, the Early Church Fathers used “pharmakeia” or “potions” in the general sense, but sometimes they went further and spoke specifically of potions causing sterility or blocking conception, see for example the part I highlighted in red in the quote I already gave before:

**“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]). **

You can’t possibly pretend that “potions” mean only abortive drugs - no, they also mean contraceptive drugs.

I guess you also failed to read and reflect upon the other teachings of the ECF, given in these links:

catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

staycatholic.com/ecf_contraception.htm

Here are just a few snippets - see the links above for the full quotes:

Clement of Alexandria: "the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged,"

(spermicidal drugs and foams are a form of contraception that damage the seed)

**Hippolytus: “[Christian women with male concubines], …they use drugs of sterility” **

(hormonal birth control drugs are exactly that - they are drugs of sterility. There exist drugs for women that render women sterile, and drugs for men that render men sterile)

Augustine: "Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility"

John Chrysostom: "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility, where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.

Jerome: "Others, indeed, will drink sterility"

It is crystal clear from the teachings of the ECF that they condemned not only abortive potions, but any potions, methods and practices aimed to damage the sperm or cause sterility and thus prevent conception during sexual intercourse.

Yet another example of how the EOC changed their teachings and they disregard today the stern warnings of the Early Church Fathers against contraception.

 

[L_piperatus]

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.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. See my answer in previous post. Your suggestion that potions are the same thing as abortifacients is just plain incorrect. Potions is a larger group that includes both contraceptive and abortifacient drugs.

 

[L_piperatus]

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.

Before you ascribe something to Orthodoxy, consult councils and synods (not here say).

I already said in my post #48 that “I haven’t done such research [a comprehensive research regarding teachings by various EOC] on surgical sterilization. I’m open to learning more about who forbids it and who permits it among the EO Churches.”

So why are you calling me “disingenuous”? My conscience is clear.

I did post (post #48) a specific example from the Greek EOC, where the priest gave his blessing for the husband to get vasectomy (surgical sterilization). This priest may be someone at odds with his own Church’s teaching, but then again, maybe he is not. Such an example must not be dismissed summarily.

And the husband in that case refused to have himself surgically sterilized. Maybe you also don’t like the example. But whether or not you like it, it’s a contemporary example from the life of the Greek EOC.

Anyway, I did a larger search and I discovered a number of examples on such internet forums as Monachos.net and Christian Forums, of EO women getting tubal ligations, men getting vasectomies, with the approval of their priests and bishops. I also found an official document on the Goarch… website (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America), saying that surgical sterilization may be approved on a case by case basis within the Greek EOC. The Monachos website had at least two EO priests posting exactly the same thing - surgical sterilization is OK for their EO believers, with the approval of their Church authorities. I can’t post links now but maybe I will post the links later if there’s sufficient interest.

In my opinion, the Greek EOC approving surgical sterilization today is in serious contradiction with the teachings of such ECF as St. John Chrysostom.

I also uncovered a post by our friend **John VIII **right here at CAF, saying that he personally knows a Russian EO man who procured a vasectomy, later confessed it to his Bishop, and was told that he should preferably reverse it as a penance, or else be banned from Holy Communion for 3 years.

The above indicates that at least some part of the Russian EOC (the Bishop mentioned was probably a ROCOR Bishop, but we would need to ask John VIII) forbids surgical sterilization, while the Greek EOC permits it on a case by case basis. As usual, it’s impossible to speak for all EOC, because they are not in agreement with each other. Which also indicates to me that they do change their teachings, and they change them in such a way that they may end up disagreeing even among themselves.

 

[Warrenton]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. See my answer in previous post. Your suggestion that potions are the same thing as abortifacients is just plain incorrect. Potions is a larger group that includes both contraceptive and abortifacient drugs.

I think Piper is right. Our predecessors in faith - east and west - had a profound revulsion for contraception and abortion.

This revulsion had a long half life, my friends, and can be seen as late as the “abortion scene” in “The Quiet Don” about Cossacks, set in the 1920s. It still has currency in rural areas of Latin America, with respect to artificial birth control, in the conviction that it destroys pleasure.

The force of Piper’s observations are made more strong by keeping in mind the sexual austerity of the old days. Sex on demand, even among married couples, was not accepted. In mediterranean countries well into the last century, abstinence from sexual relations was common during Lent and Easter. That’s the context that one must put St. Paul’s teachings to married couples in: When St. Paul talks about burning in desire, the assumption is that the people have already been abstaining for a significant period of time. They were disciplined that way, and the discipline was linked to how they perceived what we refer to as birth control.

 

[L_piperatus]

Folks, I did an internet search for “ROCOR contraception”, since I knew from my Russian Orthodox acquaintances that ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) used to ban the use of contraception and surgical sterilization. I found indeed a lot of internet chatter, people telling how their ROCOR priests/spiritual directors would not approve the use of contraception.

Now, since ROCOR still keeps its separate organizational structure after they re-established communion with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, I don’t know whether they continue their stance of forbidding contraception and surgical sterilization, but I certainly hope so. They may not be the most Catholic-friendly EO Church out there (to say the least, if you’ve met them and if you know what I mean ), but their pro-life stance is one bright spot in non-Catholic Christianity, after the whole-sale caving of Protestants and most Eastern Orthodox Churches to contraception and even to surgical sterilization, during the 20th century.

It’s also relevant to this thread, that ROCOR may be the one EO Church that actually kept its teaching on contraception unchanged, while the other EO Churches abandoned 19 centuries of constant tradition and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[L_piperatus]

Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Bishop Hilarion of Vienna (today he is Metropolitan Hilarion, in the upper leadership of Russian Orthodoxy), a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate, before they re-established communion with ROCOR. Quote from synod.com/synod/en/documents/enart_interviewrocor.html :

There are now two obvious essentially-differing versions of Christianity—the traditional and the liberal. The abyss that now exists divides not so much the Orthodox and Catholics, or the Catholics and Protestants, as the “traditionalists” and “liberals” (with all the conventions of such labels). Of course, there are defenders of traditional values in the Protestant camp (especially in the Southern churches, that is, Africa, Asia, Latin America ). But a liberal attitude prevails among the Protestants.

In this situation, I suppose that a consolidation is needed in the efforts of those churches which consider themselves “Churches of Tradition,” that is, the Orthodox, Catholics and pre-Chalcedonians. I am not talking about the serious dogmatic and ecclesiological differences which exist between these Churches and which can be considered within the framework of bilateral dialog. I am talking about the need to reach an agreement between these Churches on some strategic alliance, pact, union for defending traditional Christianity as such—defense from all modern challenges, whether militant liberalism, militant atheism or militant Islam. I would like to underline that a strategic alliance is my own idea, not the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate.

We do not need union with the Catholics, we do not need “intercommunion,” we do not need compromise for a doubtful “rapprochement.” What we do need , in my opinion , is a strategic alliance , for the challenge is made to traditional Christianity as such. This is especially noticeable in Europe , where de-Christianization and liberalization are occurring as persistently as the gradual and unswerving Islamization. The liberal, weakened “Christianity” of the Protestant communities cannot resist the onslaught of Islam; only staunch, traditional Christianity can stand against it, ready to defend its moral positions. In this battle, the Orthodox and Catholics could, even in the face of all the differences accumulated over the centuries, form a united front.

The strategic alliance I propose must first of all defend traditional moral values such as the family, childbirth, spousal fidelity. These values are subjected to systematic mockery and derision in Europe by liberals and democrats of all types. Instead of spousal fidelity, “free love” is promoted, same-sex partnerships are equated with the union of marriage, childbirth is opposed by “planned families.” Unfortunately, we have serious differences in these matters with most Protestants, not to speak of fundamental theological and ecclesiological character.

I will use as an example a conversation with a Lutheran bishop, held within the framework of a theological dialog with one of the Northern Lutheran churches. We tried to prepare a joint document in the defense of traditional values. We began to talk about abortion. I asked: “Can we put in the joint document that abortion is a sin?” The Lutheran bishop responded: “Well, of course, we don’t promote abortion, we prefer contraception.” Question: “But abortion is in the opinion of your church, a sin, or is it not?” Reply: “Well, you see, there are various circumstances, for example, the life of a mother or child could be in danger.” “Well, if there is no threat to either the mother or the child, then is abortion a sin, or not?” And the Lutheran bishop could not concede that abortion is a sin.

What is there to talk about then? Abortion is not a sin, same-sex marriage is fine, contraception—wonderful. There it is, liberal Christianity in all its glory. Besides Orthodox Christians, only the Catholics preserve the traditional view of family values in Europe , and in regard, as in many others, they are our strategic partners.

(bold and red emphasis mine)

I’m sad for those EOC that caved on contraception, and happy for the Russians whom I consider our potential allies on this, just like Metropolitan Hilarion says in his interview.

Btw, folks, it looks like the Catholic Church and the Russian EOC stayed faithful to tradition regarding contraception, while the other EOC, sadly, …caved. They CHANGED their practice… Just like the Lutheran Bishop quoted by Metropolitan Hilarion… You know, the one who said that “well, of course, we don’t promote abortion”, but who also couldn’t find it in himself to put any restrictions on abortion whatsoever, or to concede that it is a sin…

Here’s a question to my Eastern Orthodox brethren on this forum: Is contraception a sin or not?

Yeah, I’ve heard it already, “we don’t promote it, we only tolerate it, oikonomia,” and so on, but still, can we agree please on this one:** Is contraception a SIN? **

 

[Warrenton]

Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Bishop Hilarion of Vienna (today he is Metropolitan Hilarion

Bishop Hilarion is amazing!

 

[L_piperatus]

Bishop Hilarion is amazing!

Yes, and as concerns world Orthodoxy in general, I’m afraid he is finding himself a part of a shrinking minority that still stands up against contraception (as well as other ills), while probably the majority of Orthodox bishops, priests, and scholars abandoned what has been a constant tradition of world Orthodoxy for 19 centuries - the ban on contraception. Now, surgical sterilization is also allowed, at least in the Greek EOC, clearly with the approval of the bishops and priests, and there’s an official document as well from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, stating that surgical sterilization is permissible with the approval of the couple’s spiritual director.

I fear the next thing on which Eastern Orthodoxy is going to cave, is abortion. I’ve already read right here on CAF the account of a Greek Orthodox poster, whose wife had a dangerous pregnancy and whose EO priest told this couple that it was OK to have an abortion. They went ahead and aborted the baby, with the blessing of their Greek EO priest/spiritual father. I don’t know at this moment, how does this individual case line up with the position of the Greek EOC in general, and with the positions of other EOC. For example, it would be interesting to know whether the bishop of this particular Greek EO priest was cool with the blessing he gave to the couple to go ahead and abort their baby. Is this a case of disobedience by the priest to his own bishop, or is the bishop himself supporting abortions as well? I will certainly follow how the positions of the EO Churches towards abortion unfold, especially in practice. Will we see more and more cases of Eastern Orthodox women aborting their babies, with the full knowledge and approval, with the blessing of their bishops, priests, and spiritual directors?

 

[L_piperatus]

Here’s something baffling: apparently the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras sent a telegram to Pope Paul VI after he published his encyclical *Humanae Vitae *in 1968, the famous encyclical that upheld the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that contraception is sinful and remains forbidden by the Catholic Church. The encyclical caused a storm of criticism, mockery, and derision in the West, not only from non-Catholics, but also from unfaithful, dissident Catholics. At this point, Patriarch Athenagoras sends his telegram to the Pope, reassuring him that he is in total agreement and remains close to the Pope in this situation - quote from socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html :

**We assure you that we remain close to you, above all in these recent days when you have taken the good step of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total agreement with you, and wish you all God’s help to continue your mission in the world.

{Telegram from Patriarch Athenagoras to Pope Paul VI, 9 August 1968, reprinted in Towards the Healing of Schism, ed. & trans. E.J. Stormon (1987), p. 197}**

So, how did the Eastern Orthodox Churches go from here, just 43 years ago, to accepting contraception as of 2011?

And here’s a keen observation by the Catholic theologian William Klimon, quote from the same website socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html :

**In the first edition, first printing (1963) of *The Orthodox Church *by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware - a widely-cited and authoritative source on Orthodox teaching -, the author states (page 302):

Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church.

The first edition, revised 1984 version of The Orthodox Church, however (NY: Penguin Books, page 302), states (emphasis added):

The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father.

The second edition, revised 1993 version of *The Orthodox Church *reveals even further alarming departure from Orthodox and previously universal Christian Tradition (page 296; emphasis added):

Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences.**

What’s going on? Is Bishop (Metropolitan) Kallistos Ware documenting the CAVING of the Orthodox Church to CONTRACEPTION within a short three decades from 1963 to 1993, in front of our very eyes?

And once again, here’s the question to our EO brethren: Is contraception a SIN? Is surgical sterilization a SIN?

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is a concession??? So thats how you rationalize it, I love the way you downplay this. Wonder what words you’d use for ethanasisa, genocide or murder?

Contraception = well that is form of acting off your inadaquate feelings. Do you really want to defend this behavior?

Peace,

And btw just so you get this "NOTHING IS CONSTANT BUT CHANGE!! For change cannot be prior to being. So much for your never changing EO,

 

[L_piperatus]

It is a concession??? So thats how you rationalize it, I love the way you downplay this. Wonder what words you’d use for ethanasisa, genocide or murder?

Contraception = well that is form of acting off your inadaquate feelings. Do you really want to defend this behavior?

Peace,

And btw just so you get this "NOTHING IS CONSTANT BUT CHANGE!! For change cannot be prior to being. So much for your never changing EO,

Furthermore, if Eastern Orthodoxy allows contraception as a “concession” to married couples who can’t afford children due to various reasons (health, financial etc), but are too weak to abstain, wouldn’t it be logical to make a concession to single people who are too weak to abstain from fornication and masturbation? Also, make a concession to gay and lesbian folks who are too weak to abstain?

I guess you could rationalize a never-ending string of “concessions” or “oikonomia” until you end up exactly like the Episcopalian Church in America, today.

But I would still be interested in this, from the standpoint of Eastern Orthodox teaching - yes or no:

Is contraception a SIN? Is surgical sterilization a SIN?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Your insistence on debating this topic (to the point that you have made over half a dozen posts without an Orthodox poster responding) borders on obsession. Why do you care so much about what the Orthodox do? Perhaps you should turn your attention to your own Church which will commune those who use contraception, even though out is supposed to be forbidden. Which one is worse, that we make a concession to human weakness, or that your Church takes the hypocritical stance of communing those who engage in a certain behavior on one hand, yet condemning it officially on the other hand? At least we can be honest with ourselves and admit that while contraception is sinful, we make an allowance for it on a case by case basis, to prevent greater spiritual harm from visiting those involved.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Furthermore, if Eastern Orthodoxy allows contraception as a “concession” to married couples who can’t afford children due to various reasons (health, financial etc), but are too weak to abstain, wouldn’t it be logical to make a concession to single people who are too weak to abstain from fornication and masturbation? Also, make a concession to gay and lesbian folks who are too weak to abstain?

I guess you could rationalize a never-ending string of “concessions” or “oikonomia” until you end up exactly like the Episcopalian Church in America, today.

But I would still be interested in this, from the standpoint of Eastern Orthodox teaching - yes or no:

Is contraception a SIN? Is surgical sterilization a SIN?

I’ve honestly attempted to engage in a open dialogue in this context. and it turned into defending, by any means to the point of absurdity. At some point honest, open-minded dialogue must take place. I’m sure we all encountered this in our field of education.

Its mot amtter of right ot wrong, its a matter of knowledge which is in fact “truth”. We simply must do better.

Hey, If I am wrong “in any specific area”, show me I’m wrong, I want to comprehend the truth. And this is what I am failing to see to see happen by large.

No different with “primacy” thats misterpreted as supremacy, and the Keys, and Binding and Loosing. and through all this fustration sets in and the point it totally missed.

Everyones under the impression we have another 2000-years so no worry, we’ll figure it out. All the while we have misguided men with guided missles.

I just think we can do so much better.

I think of of my own trials with confession. And I admit reluctantly I walked in there many a Saturday with the same sin over and over. But it was the right way correct my behavior of course my education went a long way to help me understand myself. But to give oneself permission as a concession? How can that correct anything by accepting thus cooperating with the behavior.

Granted we all have different issues and Cross’s to bear. Some think nothing of these sexual aspects, for others its obedience. But its cretainly amazing what we as humans will rationalize as “eh, no big deal”

Interesting though for sure. I often think of the NFP/Contraceptive becaues so often its the little things which lead to the grave errors. And while I magnify them, be it intentional, its because other’s minimize them to the point of non-existance. I see it with my children today with peer pressure. 15-16 years, and in in two weeks. I’m asking him “What Happened”

Grace and Peace

 

[Warrenton]

Which one is worse, that we make a concession to human weakness, or that your Church takes the hypocritical stance of communing those who engage in a certain behavior on one hand, yet condemning it officially on the other hand?

One of the desert fathers said that whosoever covers his brother’s sin, will have his own sin covered, and who reveals it, will have his own revealed.

Isn’t that the situation here? How would the Fathers answer your question? They would send us both into the desert or up onto the mountain in nakedness to fast and pray.

Your question, however, illustrates the critical point, which I for one become more convinced of as time goes on, and which His Grace, Bishop Hilarion addresses: Orthodox and Catholics need each other, desperately. We can’t go it alone. Yes, of course Christ will save a remnant to preserve his Holy prophecy that the Church will never be destroyed, but if it gets to that remnant, how dreadful will those of us who let it happen be? How will ever atone for the souls we will have lost?

The Fathers would probably answer your question this way: for Catholics, they would want to know why the eucharist is given promiscuously, and who is turning a blind eye to community sin? Where are the confessors? For Orthodox, the Fathers would ask who dares approach his wife as if she were a harlot for mere pleasure, and calls himself a good Christian man?

The Fathers would look around, and they would tell us we are making full steam for hell, and that neither allowances nor frequent communion will save an unrepentent sinner from perdition.

Bread and water are both needed to live. If one man has bread but no water, and his brother has water but no bread, what is the rational solution?

 

[dominikus28]

Your insistence on debating this topic (to the point that you have made over half a dozen posts without an Orthodox poster responding) borders on obsession. Why do you care so much about what the Orthodox do? Perhaps you should turn your attention to your own Church which will commune those who use contraception, even though out is supposed to be forbidden. Which one is worse, that we make a concession to human weakness, or that your Church takes the hypocritical stance of communing those who engage in a certain behavior on one hand, yet condemning it officially on the other hand? At least we can be honest with ourselves and admit that while contraception is sinful, we make an allowance for it on a case by case basis, to prevent greater spiritual harm from visiting those involved.

So Orthodox teaching HAS changed. That is all we want to know.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I am interested in the Orthodox position and whether they have changed or not, is because they claim they have not changed, and if that is true, that must mean the Catholic Church has changed. So it affects my Catholic faith.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So Orthodox teaching HAS changed. That is all we want to know.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I am interested in the Orthodox position and whether they have changed or not, is because they claim they have not changed, and if that is true, that must mean the Catholic Church has changed. So it affects my Catholic faith.

It depends on what you mean by change. Keep in mind that neither the divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom nor the Catholic Mass (either the OF or the EF) existed in their current forms in the first century. If a Church is entirely unchanged after 2000 years, then it would only mean that the Holy Spirit is not alive in that Church. The Orthodox Church does not claim that it has not changed, but that its understanding of doctrines like the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation have not changed since the beginning of the Christian faith.