Orthodox Unchanged?

[RyanBlack]

Contraception is a mortal sin.

Not necessarily in every case. Contraception is a sin that, according to Roman Catholic categories, involves grave matter, which is one of the requirements for a sin to be considered mortal. However, for something to involve grave matter does not necessarily equate it with being mortal sin. There must also be both knowledge that the sin involves grave matter and free consent of the will.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The idea doesn’t seem as far-fetched to me as you suggest. I’m thinking about the case of Tsar Peter the Great, who divorced his first wife Eudoxia and later married Catherine I. There’s a parallel there to the life of King Henry VIII, who schismed from Rome and established the Church of England, since the Pope would not approve of his divorce and remarriage. However in Peter’s Russia, the Eastern Orthodox Church did not prevent him from divorcing his wife and from marrying Catherine I. It was all about Peter dumping the woman he wasn’t in love with, and then finding this other woman who was more appealing to him, and who also bore him children and potential successors to the throne. Peter the Great would have had a big problem with Rome if he was Catholic - the Pope would have probably banned his effort for a Church-approved second marriage, just like a previous Pope did with Henry VIII. But luckily for Peter the Great, he was not Catholic. He was Eastern Orthodox, and the EO Church of Russia allowed him to divorce and remarry.

I didn’t see the EO guidelines for divorce in the quote you posted, and I thought that document was only about contraception and abortion. But I will go to the link you provided to educate myself about the EOC’s guidelines for divorce and remarriage.

Peter the Great is not a good comparison for King Henry VIII. Henry did not abolish the papacy and make a puppet of the Roman Catholic Church as Peter did to the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate. He got his divorce, but only because he had asserted his dominance over the Russian Orthodox Church at that point. He wouldn’t have caused a schism had he not been given a divorce; he would have killed them, which is a rather important difference.

 

[TrueLight]

I really hope I am not going off topic, but is there an Orthodox equivalent to “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation)?”

It doesn’t have to be a dogmatic declaration, but just general belief.

If there is, I am interested in how that has changed in the Orthodox church over the years, if at all.

Thanks.

 

[Bluegoat]

The idea doesn’t seem as far-fetched to me as you suggest. I’m thinking about the case of Tsar Peter the Great, who divorced his first wife Eudoxia and later married Catherine I. There’s a parallel there to the life of King Henry VIII, who schismed from Rome and established the Church of England, since the Pope would not approve of his divorce and remarriage. However in Peter’s Russia, the Eastern Orthodox Church did not prevent him from divorcing his wife and from marrying Catherine I. It was all about Peter dumping the woman he wasn’t in love with, and then finding this other woman who was more appealing to him, and who also bore him children and potential successors to the throne. Peter the Great would have had a big problem with Rome if he was Catholic - the Pope would have probably banned his effort for a Church-approved second marriage, just like a previous Pope did with Henry VIII. But luckily for Peter the Great, he was not Catholic. He was Eastern Orthodox, and the EO Church of Russia allowed him to divorce and remarry.

Do you know anything about Louis VII?

 

[Hesychios]

Do you know anything about Louis VII?

Not to mention Eleonor.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I really hope I am not going off topic, but is there an Orthodox equivalent to “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation)?”

It doesn’t have to be a dogmatic declaration, but just general belief.

If there is, I am interested in how that has changed in the Orthodox church over the years, if at all.

Thanks.

Opinions have varied historically and still do vary on whether or not those outside of the Church may be saved. I believe it was St. Maximos the Confessor who said something along the lines of, “one should hope for universal reconciliation to be true, but it would be foolish to teach it.” The consensus today is generally that we just can’t know about the state of souls outside of the Church; although, there is a minority opinion that those outside of the Church will find only eternal damnation.

 

[TrueLight]

Opinions have varied historically and still do vary on whether or not those outside of the Church may be saved. I believe it was St. Maximos the Confessor who said something along the lines of, “one should hope for universalism, but it would be foolish to teach it.” The consensus today is generally that we just can’t know about the state of souls outside of the Church; although, there is a minority opinion that those outside of the Church will find only eternal damnation.

Thank you Cavaradossi.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Not necessarily in every case. Contraception is a sin that, according to Roman Catholic categories, involves grave matter, which is one of the requirements for a sin to be considered mortal. However, for something to involve grave matter does not necessarily equate it with being mortal sin. There must also be both knowledge that the sin involves grave matter and free consent of the will.

Yes, and it is the job of each member of the faithful as well as their pastors to grow in knowledge of the faith. A Priest can’t withhold information from his sheep in an effort to save them from sin.

As far as consent of the will- have you ever known anyone who accidentaly put on a condom or accidentaly took birth control pills?

Barring rape, it’s very hard to see contraception being used without consent of the will.

Counseling people that a sin of grave matter is acceptable…that would be a mortal sin as well.

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes, and it is the job of each member of the faithful as well as their pastors to grow in knowledge of the faith. A Priest can’t withhold information from his sheep in an effort to save them from sin.

As far as consent of the will- have you ever known anyone who accidentaly put on a condom or accidentaly took birth control pills?

Barring rape, it’s very hard to see contraception being used without consent of the will.

Counseling people that a sin of grave matter is acceptable…that would be a mortal sin as well.

Your understanding of Roman Catholic moral theology seems to me to be deficient insofar as you seem no to take into account the psychology of the individual when determining whether or not impediments may exist that reduce culpability-something which the Church does in fact do. Furthermore, there are many who are ignorant of the fact that the Church teaches that contraception is a matter of grave matter.

The Church’s teaching with respect to what constitutes mortal sin is not nearly so black-and-white as you seem to want it to be. Even your remark that counseling people that a sin of grave matter is acceptable is itself a mortal sin is problematic without being qualified. If the person who gives such counsel is not aware that grave matter is involved, then it is not a matter of mortal sin. So, please stop saying, “Such and such a sin is mortal sin.”

There is no list of sins that are automatically mortal. There are acts that automatically involve grave matter, but it is not up to you or to me to say that they are automatically mortal. That determination belongs to God, and God alone. The individual penitent must determine, with the guidance of his confessor, by Church teaching, through examination of conscience, and finally, with God’s guidance received through prayer, whether individual acts involving grave matter are indeed a matter of mortal sin.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Your understanding of Roman Catholic moral theology seems to me to be deficient insofar as you seem no to take into account the psychology of the individual when determining whether or not impediments may exist that reduce culpability-something which the Church does in fact do. Furthermore, there are many who are ignorant of the fact that the Church teaches that contraception is a matter of grave matter.

The Church’s teaching with respect to what constitutes mortal sin is not nearly so black-and-white as you seem to want it to be. Even your remark that counseling people that a sin of grave matter is acceptable is itself a mortal sin is problematic without being qualified. If the person who gives such counsel is not aware that grave matter is involved, then it is not a matter of mortal sin. So, please stop saying, “Such and such a sin is mortal sin.”

There is no list of sins that are automatically mortal. There are acts that automatically involve grave matter, but it is not up to you or to me to say that they are automatically mortal. That determination belongs to God, and God alone. The individual penitent must determine, with the guidance of his confessor, by Church teaching, through examination of conscience, and finally, with God’s guidance received through prayer, whether individual acts involving grave matter are indeed a matter of mortal sin.

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. I do understand that while an act may objectively be a mortal sin, a person may not be culpable. However, I am speaking specifically in regards to the Orthodox teaching which has been present in this thread. In what has been presented as the official teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is stated that contraception is evil, but that people may use it anyway, if they find it too difficult not too. That shows that at least those promulgating the teaching are aware the act is evil, because they say so in their own words. They teach the teaching, an act of will. And the matter is grave as they encourage others to commit a mortal sin. You are correct, you and I can not for certain know the state of someone’s soul, but from all outward appearances, it would seem to meet the requirements for a mortal sin being committed.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

We seem to be pretty much saying the same thing but using different terminology. If a sin involves grave matter- it is an objective mortal sin. It’s doesn’t matter if the person is culpable, it’s still objectively a mortal sin. Now base on the other relevant factors, it may be an actual mortal sin, an actual venial sin, or no sin at all.

Pax

 

[Bluegoat]

Your understanding of Roman Catholic moral theology seems to me to be deficient insofar as you seem no to take into account the psychology of the individual when determining whether or not impediments may exist that reduce culpability-something which the Church does in fact do. Furthermore, there are many who are ignorant of the fact that the Church teaches that contraception is a matter of grave matter.

The Church’s teaching with respect to what constitutes mortal sin is not nearly so black-and-white as you seem to want it to be. Even your remark that counseling people that a sin of grave matter is acceptable is itself a mortal sin is problematic without being qualified. If the person who gives such counsel is not aware that grave matter is involved, then it is not a matter of mortal sin. So, please stop saying, “Such and such a sin is mortal sin.”

There is no list of sins that are automatically mortal. There are acts that automatically involve grave matter, but it is not up to you or to me to say that they are automatically mortal. That determination belongs to God, and God alone. The individual penitent must determine, with the guidance of his confessor, by Church teaching, through examination of conscience, and finally, with God’s guidance received through prayer, whether individual acts involving grave matter are indeed a matter of mortal sin.

Ha ha. Yes, but you have no idea how many Catholics I have argued with about this. This idea of objective lists of sins seems very prevalent and widely taught. This is the main reason I am convinced that it probably isn’t a great way to think about sin.

 

[Warrenton]

Ha ha. Yes, but you have no idea how many Catholics I have argued with about this. This idea of objective lists of sins seems very prevalent and widely taught. This is the main reason I am convinced that it probably isn’t a great way to think about sin.

To me, the older way of thinking about sins is more helpful. They are summed up nicely in the seven deadly ones.

Lust is a deadly sin. Contraception leads to sex for pleasure only. Sex for pleasure only leads to lust, in the same way that drinking just to get drunk leads to alcoholism. Having said this, one risks any number of posts from people who invariably claim they only use contraception after praying five decades of the rosary or attending an Ingnatian retreat. All one can say to such objections is “bully for them.” The rest of us mortals, however, find ourselves aligned with the faithful from time immemorial who assert that sex habitually decoupled from procreation becomes simple gratification of the appetite. Didn’t they refer to this as “concupiscence?”

That is the sin toward which contraception tends, and it most certainly leads people to hell. The old saints were unanimous about that.

 

[RyanBlack]

We seem to be pretty much saying the same thing but using different terminology. If a sin involves grave matter- it is an objective mortal sin. It’s doesn’t matter if the person is culpable, it’s still objectively a mortal sin. Now base on the other relevant factors, it may be an actual mortal sin, an actual venial sin, or no sin at all.

Pax

I think it would be more precise and preferable to say that an act that involves grave matter is an objectively evil act, not that it is necessarily an objectively mortal sin. Culpability does not come into play with respect to determining whether an act is objectively evil. However, it does matter in determining whether the act is a matter of mortal sin, venial sin, or no sin at all.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Grave=Mortal.

Objectively Grave is the same thing as Objectively Mortal.

Pax

 

[mardukm]

I really hope I am not going off topic, but is there an Orthodox equivalent to “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation)?”

It doesn’t have to be a dogmatic declaration, but just general belief.

If there is, I am interested in how that has changed in the Orthodox church over the years, if at all.

Thanks.

I can only speak for the Oriental Orthodox - yes. I think the Syriacs and Armenians tend to view the matter the same way as the CC does. The Copts are more strict, IMO.

I can opine, judging from conversations with EO, that they also have an identical soteriological stance. The mitigation of invincible ignorance within Cathlicism has a parallel in Orthodoxy with the “we don’t know for sure” understanding of those outside the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I think it would be more precise and preferable to say that an act that involves grave matter is an objectively evil act, not that it is necessarily an objectively mortal sin. Culpability does not come into play with respect to determining whether an act is objectively evil. However, it does matter in determining whether the act is a matter of mortal sin, venial sin, or no sin at all.

From what I know, this is absolutely correct. For example, a venial sin can become mortal, and a mortal sin can be no sin at all, these depending on the disposition of the sinner. The term “grave” is descriptive of the sin itself. The terms “mortal” and “venial” allude more to the sinner than the sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can only speak for the Oriental Orthodox - yes. I think the Syriacs and Armenians tend to view the matter the same way as the CC does. The Copts are more strict, IMO.

I can opine, judging from conversations with EO, that they also have an identical soteriological stance. The mitigation of invincible ignorance within Cathlicism has a parallel in Orthodoxy with the “we don’t know for sure” understanding of those outside the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

A great link on this is “Is there Salvation Outside the Church” ewtn.com/library.

Peace, Gary

 

[Bluegoat]

To me, the older way of thinking about sins is more helpful. They are summed up nicely in the seven deadly ones.

Lust is a deadly sin. Contraception leads to sex for pleasure only. Sex for pleasure only leads to lust, in the same way that drinking just to get drunk leads to alcoholism. Having said this, one risks any number of posts from people who invariably claim they only use contraception after praying five decades of the rosary or attending an Ingnatian retreat. All one can say to such objections is “bully for them.” The rest of us mortals, however, find ourselves aligned with the faithful from time immemorial who assert that sex habitually decoupled from procreation becomes simple gratification of the appetite. Didn’t they refer to this as “concupiscence?”

That is the sin toward which contraception tends, and it most certainly leads people to hell. The old saints were unanimous about that.

I always find myself in the funny position with this issue of agree that artificial contrception and “natural family planning” are generally very bad for society, and most of the time for individuals as well. We’d be best off to simply abstain when we are not wishing/willing to have children.

But I find personally and I think with many other people that it isn’t always that simple. On the one hand, I think that compared to the past, many people are not able to accomodate the larger families we used to see commonly. This is a problem in part caused by contraception itself, but all of us find ourselves caught within that. And modern maternity care has also contributed to the issue as well, with up tp 30% of births being surgical in NA. Not a good recipe for large families. And the fragmentation of extended families and even communities, and the necessity for parents to both work in many cases.

And then there is the issue of what might be called “the marriage debt”. To what extent can we refuse our spouse? If our spouse is not on the same page, what are we to do? The fact is that in the recent past, women were told to submit to their husband in this, whatever the health or financial results. Men were of course still morally obliged to act in love of their spouse, but in fact, many did not. They insisted on marital rights even when the results were very bad for the wife or family as a whole, or they took their sexual needs elsewhere.

Well, thankfully now we don’t see that level of obedience required where women have to risk their own health under all circumstances, but the problem still remains. How do we reconcile the need to be good stewards for a family with the limitations and varied understanding of two separate people?

To me, there is often no way to make it all add up.

 

[L_piperatus]

Folks, I digged up this old thread because someone was asking about patristic quotations regarding things like artificial birth control and sterilization - the Early Church Fathers condemned these, and this thread has patristic quotations plus links to documents that discuss at length the Early Church Fathers’ teachings.