Questions for Eastern Orthodox Christians

[josephdaniel29]

Interesting. I know we should abstain (apart from food where possible) from something we like during the fasting period but those thing are things that bring us away from God like maybe TV, gossip and our other weaknesses. We are instead to do the things that can bring us closer to God like penance, praying and giving alm.

Abstain from sex is something new to me and of course is not included among the abstinence during our fasting period. Sex is God’s gift in marriage and it is holy. But if we immerse ourselves in prayers, we may not be thinking so much about sex but nevertheless there is nothing wrong with it in a marriage life. It certainly does not bring us away from God.

Food is also entirely good and wholesome, yet we abstain from certain foods for periods of time to concentrate more intently on the Kingdom.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Reuben_J]

Well marriages aren’t undertaken as white marriages in the beginning. It’s something that the couple decides to do later with the blessing of a spiritual father. As far as justification is there are a number of saints who lived in celibate marriages and many more who separated from each other to join a monastery. A recent example is St John of Kronstadt who lived in a celibate marriage.

Yes, I know this kind of thing do happen but it is exceptional rather than as a rule. Maybe it is just my impression but the way it is mentioned here, I thought it is very common among the Orthodox.

As far as numbers go I don’t have any hard evidence. Of course couples living in celibate marriages wouldn’t broadcast it to the world. From what I’m told it is very rare as is agreed separation. Couples undertake it for the same reason one undertakes any ascetic effort, to grow in communion with God.

In Christ
Joe

Just what I thought. People don’t flaunt their spirituality especially if it involves something very private, very scared to them. It is then only guessing work on our part since we do not have any experience ourselves or meet the couples who do.

As I said I have come across a few Catholic couples who practice celibacy in their marriage but these are more due to circumstances. These come to my knowledge as these people do come for help and support in overcoming this aspect of the problem in their lives.

I have nothing against people who celibate in order to achieve that close communion with God. If it is for a noble purpose who can say that it is wrong? It is only that I thought there are other ways to achieve it and beside the fact that sex in marriage is ordained by God himself. It is never seen as negative in spirituality in married people.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Food is also entirely good and wholesome, yet we abstain from certain foods for periods of time to concentrate more intently on the Kingdom.

In Christ
Joe

No, bro, it is not. Maybe physically but not spiritually. It serves to feed the body and its craving. Paul calls it the flesh and too much of it is becomes gluttony. We have to experience the absence in order to feel the presence (of God). That’s why it (fasting) is encouraged.

Sex on the other hand is commanded by God. So it could hardly be put in the category of food. There is distinction between the two scripturally.

 

[Nine_Two]

Food isn’t commanded by God? Why then did he make it so necessary.

We abstain from certain things because they are a distraction, not because there is something inherently wrong with them.

 

[Reuben_J]

Food isn’t commanded by God? Why then did he make it so necessary.

We abstain from certain things because they are a distraction, not because there is something inherently wrong with them.

To avoid distraction is a part of the reason for fasting. I hope we are still on the subject of fasting. The other part is to experience the absence so as to experience the presence (of God). Our flesh is driven by our desire – which is the desire of the flesh. It is controlled by our senses. Food in itself has its purpose but it also include desire for which it must be satisfied. If we follow all the desire of our flesh we can hardly have anything left for God. That’s another reason for fasting too. In this sense we are to abstain from food.

Sex on the other hand is in different category though one can say it involves the desire of the flesh. A Spirit-filled person who understand the role of sex in marriage would always see it not as carnal and lust but as something holy and has a purpose, namely procreation. It is thus commanded by God. If we look at marriage as a vocation, sex could take into a dimension of spirituality. So there is a difference though it can be difficult to see but definitely there is.

 

[Reuben_J]

"Reuben J:

I must apologize if Orthodox see it your way as I don’t know much about your belief.

From a Catholic point of view, ABC kills while NFP does not. But then this is just Catholic view.

I don’t understand the distinction as they both purpose to frustrate conception. The only difference is the method used.

In Christ
Joe

I missed this post earlier on. It is true they both prevent conception but the method each is employing is different. ABC involves in killing the foetus while NFP does not. This is often a topic of great debate but we consider the unification of the ovum and the sperm as the beginning of life. The ABC kills this unification (the embryo) before it can develop into a more a human-like foetus. So the method is not the same as ABC involves murder.

So it depends on a position you take – either you consider the human embryo a life or not; if you don’t then of course there is no distinction for you. I am pro-life and consider it as a life created by God and therefore not to be killed.

Edit: I just realize. The word ‘conception’ is used looselyhere. ABC actually does not prevent conception because conception still happens in a woman who uses ABC. What it does is to abort what happen after conception by prevent the embryo from implanting itself on the wall of the uterus for it to grow.

 

[inkaneer]

Penitence in the Western Church as in “100 Hail Marys and 100 Our Fathers,” that sort of thing. The “stereotype,” if you will.
I meant “legalistic” as in “specific punishment that has to be carried out.” I now see it was a poor choice of words.
I did not “get that” in my Melkite Confession.

Here’s news for you. I don’t get that when I go to confession either. Instead my pennance varies all the time. So this idea of 100 Our Fathers and 100 Hail Mary’s is bogus. That is not to say there are not priests who give specific prayers but then you went to confession only one time with one Melkite priest. Who is to say there aren’t Melkite priests who do the “legalistic” thingy as well?

 

[inkaneer]

ABC may be allowed for the same reasons the Catholic Church may allow NFP. In fact, it seems to me, based on papal encyclicals such as Casti connubii and other patristic evidence, that the use of NFP is itself an exercise of economia on the part of the Catholic Church.
In Christ
Joe

The crucial word in NFP is the first one, Natural. All other methods of birth control employ artificial means. NFP employs the natural cycle of human ovulation as God planned it to work. It is, therefore, not sinful.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The crucial word in NFP is the first one, Natural. All other methods of birth control employ artificial means. NFP employs the natural cycle of human ovulation as God planned it to work. It is, therefore, not sinful.

Support that position from Tradition or the fathers.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I missed this post earlier on. It is true they both prevent conception but the method each is employing is different. ABC involves in killing the foetus while NFP does not. This is often a topic of great debate but we consider the unification of the ovum and the sperm as the beginning of life. The ABC kills this unification (the embryo) before it can develop into a more a human-like foetus. So the method is not the same as ABC involves murder.

So it depends on a position you take – either you consider the human embryo a life or not; if you don’t then of course there is no distinction for you. I am pro-life and consider it as a life created by God and therefore not to be killed.

Edit: I just realize. The word ‘conception’ is used looselyhere. ABC actually does not prevent conception because conception still happens in a woman who uses ABC. What it does is to abort what happen after conception by prevent the embryo from implanting itself on the wall of the uterus for it to grow.

Oh I see where the mix us is. You think we’re talking about the pill right? The only form of contraception the Church may allow are non-abortifacient, such as condoms and diaphragms. The pill or IUD’s are never allowed because of the risk of aborting a fertilized egg.

In Christ
Joe

 

[inkaneer]

Support that position from Tradition or the fathers.

Can you show where Tradition or the fathers condemn it? I can show you where they condemn artificiual means of contraception. On NFP they are silent. And the reason is simple, NFP follows the natural law. That’s the way God designed it to work and no father will go against that. Therefore there is no sin in NFP All other means of contraception are artificial and by being so violate the natural law and thus sinful.

 

[Reuben_J]

Oh I see where the mix us is. You think we’re talking about the pill right? The only form of contraception the Church may allow are non-abortifacient, such as condoms and diaphragms. The pill or IUD’s are never allowed because of the risk of aborting a fertilized egg.

In Christ
Joe

HI bro. Though not an expert, I am quite knowledgeable about different types of birth control. There is no mix really. I am saying this not to boast but so that we would not waste time on definition.

Condoms and diaphragms are not considered as just birth control but could also be categorized as the ‘sin of Onan’ where the semen is being spilled not according to its intended purpose.

Bro, if your religion permits birth control, there is nothing for you to justify it other than to accept it not as a sin. Our differences is we consider them sin. I am not saying you are wrong; we just do not agree with it.

God bless you bro.

 

[Harpazo]

Can you show where Tradition or the fathers condemn it? I can show you where they condemn artificiual means of contraception. On NFP they are silent. And the reason is simple, NFP follows the natural law. That’s the way God designed it to work and no father will go against that. Therefore there is no sin in NFP All other means of contraception are artificial and by being so violate the natural law and thus sinful.

An excerpt from Casti Connubii:

Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii” in 1930:

"And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed
to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the
offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of
matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people
not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony
when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify
this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish
to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that
they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have
children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on
the part of the family circumstances.

"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything
intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally
good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for
the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate
its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is
shameful and intrinsically vicious.

"Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty
regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has
punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s
legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is
prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it
(Gen. 38:8-10).

“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian
tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another
doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has
entrusted the defence of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect
in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may
preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul
stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through
Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such
a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to
generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those
who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and:

Tobias 6:17 - “The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three
days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity.
Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Raphael that to engage in the
marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For
they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from
themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as
the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath
power.”

Commentary and following Scripture passage provided by an Orthodox hieromonk acquaintance of mine.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nine_Two]

To avoid distraction is a part of the reason for fasting. I hope we are still on the subject of fasting. The other part is to experience the absence so as to experience the presence (of God). Our flesh is driven by our desire – which is the desire of the flesh. It is controlled by our senses. Food in itself has its purpose but it also include desire for which it must be satisfied. If we follow all the desire of our flesh we can hardly have anything left for God. That’s another reason for fasting too. In this sense we are to abstain from food.

Sex on the other hand is in different category though one can say it involves the desire of the flesh. A Spirit-filled person who understand the role of sex in marriage would always see it not as carnal and lust but as something holy and has a purpose, namely procreation. It is thus commanded by God. If we look at marriage as a vocation, sex could take into a dimension of spirituality. So there is a difference though it can be difficult to see but definitely there is.

If there is a distinction you still haven’t made it.

By the way, the East doesn’t fast to feel the absence, it is simply to get closer to God through eliminating distraction.

 

[Bluegoat]

Here’s news for you. I don’t get that when I go to confession either. Instead my pennance varies all the time. So this idea of 100 Our Fathers and 100 Hail Mary’s is bogus. That is not to say there are not priests who give specific prayers but then you went to confession only one time with one Melkite priest. Who is to say there aren’t Melkite priests who do the “legalistic” thingy as well?

It isn’t so much the list of prayers to say that makes it legalistic. It is a difference in theory, which sometimes give rise to the list of prayers approach. In Catholic confession, you have to do the penance to make up for the “temporal debt” for sin, which otherwise has to be paid in purgatory. It could be paid with a penance that seems to “fit” the sin, or by saying a prayer.

In the East, there is really no equivalent to this - there is no temporal debt - that is the fundamental difference. There is nothing to work off. So penance is not required, and is done when it is seen to be useful. So a penance that is going to positively impact the individual, and help somehow with that sin, is more likely, otherwise there would be no point.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Can you show where Tradition or the fathers condemn it? I can show you where they condemn artificiual means of contraception. On NFP they are silent. And the reason is simple, NFP follows the natural law. That’s the way God designed it to work and no father will go against that. Therefore there is no sin in NFP All other means of contraception are artificial and by being so violate the natural law and thus sinful.

An excerpt from Casti Connubii:

Quote:
Quote:
Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii” in 1930:

"And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed
to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the
offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of
matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people
not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony
when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify
this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish
to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that
they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have
children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on
the part of the family circumstances.

"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything
intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally
good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for
the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate
its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is
shameful and intrinsically vicious.

"Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty
regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has
punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s
legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is
prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it
(Gen. 38:8-10).

“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian
tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another
doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has
entrusted the defence of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect
in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may
preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul
stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through
Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such
a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to
generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those
who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and:

An excerpt from Casti Connubii:

Commentary and following Scripture passage provided by an Orthodox hieromonk acquaintance of mine.

In Christ,
Andrew

I guess you missed the part where the pope said. "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.

It’s that part about “anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good” that is the fly in your soup. NFP is not against nature; it is nature itself. By the way this encyclical was written expressly because some protestant churches decided that artificial contraception was no sin. It condemned artificial contraception in the face of protestant acquiescence to the pseudo science of eugenics.

 

[Harpazo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Can you show where Tradition or the fathers condemn it? I can show you where they condemn artificiual means of contraception. On NFP they are silent. And the reason is simple, NFP follows the natural law. That’s the way God designed it to work and no father will go against that. Therefore there is no sin in NFP All other means of contraception are artificial and by being so violate the natural law and thus sinful.

An excerpt from Casti Connubii:

Quote:
Quote:
Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii” in 1930:

"And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed
to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the
offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of
matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people
not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony
when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify
this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish
to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that
they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have
children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on
the part of the family circumstances.

"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything
intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally
good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for
the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate
its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is
shameful and intrinsically vicious.

"Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty
regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has
punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s
legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is
prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it
(Gen. 38:8-10).

“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian
tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another
doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has
entrusted the defence of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect
in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may
preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul
stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through
Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such
a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to
generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those
who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Here Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally sinful,
because they frustrate the marriage act. According to Pius XI, the primary
purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education
of children. NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things,
by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary
end) while having marital relations. It does what Pope Pius XI teaches may
not lawfully be done. NFP frustrates the primary purpose of marriage. Is it
right to frustrate the primary purpose of marriage? It looks like it is not,
according to this encyclical and:

I guess you missed the part where the pope said. "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.

It’s that part about “anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good” that is the fly in your soup. NFP is not against nature; it is nature itself. By the way this encyclical was written expressly because some protestant churches decided that artificial contraception was no sin. It condemned artificial contraception in the face of protestant acquiescence to the pseudo science of eugenics.

I still see “natural” contraception as contraception. Many Orthodox I have spoken with see the RCC as allowing contraception so long as it is natural (NFP), but also see the RCC as eventually accepting other forms. Today news broke about the pope permitting condom use in certain cases. That furthers my belief that the RCC will eventually other methods of contraception. It appears the door has been swung open, but I am not rejoicing over it.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I had understood the purpose of NFP to allow married couples to engage in intercourse during non-fertile periods to avoid pregnancy. From what I understand, Casti Connubii says that any sexual act without the intention of the generation of children is against nature.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Reuben_J]

If there is a distinction you still haven’t made it.

By the way, the East doesn’t fast to feel the absence, it is simply to get closer to God through eliminating distraction.

Aren’t we only stating our belief respectively? No problem at all. I am glad to be informed of the East belief on this. As you can see and I hope you understand what I was trying to say, to me fasting is much more than just avoiding distraction - it’s another spirituality altogether. There is much that can be said about it and we are not going to have it discussed fruitfully here as we seem to be defending our belief respectively and perhaps talking pass each other.

Have a nice day.

 

[Nine_Two]

Aren’t we only stating our belief respectively? No problem at all. I am glad to be informed of the East belief on this. As you can see and I hope you understand what I was trying to say, to me fasting is much more than just avoiding distraction - it’s another spirituality altogether. There is much that can be said about it and we are not going to have it discussed fruitfully here as we seem to be defending our belief respectively and perhaps talking pass each other.

Have a nice day.

Indeed, always nice to learn

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Here’s news for you. I don’t get that when I go to confession either. Instead my pennance varies all the time. So this idea of 100 Our Fathers and 100 Hail Mary’s is bogus. That is not to say there are not priests who give specific prayers but then you went to confession only one time with one Melkite priest. Who is to say there aren’t Melkite priests who do the “legalistic” thingy as well?

Ok, I can accept that.

One thing-------From the Melkite tradiotion I have studied, it may indeed be like you said but rare. It is just very different in the “Eastern” Way.

But I get what you are saying. Like I said, poor choice of words.