Trinitarian Theologies of East and West -- reconciled at long last

[Fr_Ambrose]

John,
Please send your e-mail address, parakalo!
emrys @ globe.net.nz

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

And what about Cyprian of Carthage: “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”

I would have said the same myself if I were in Saint Cyprian’s slippers in the 3rd century.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

I don’t know the extent of your education, but be advised that the Orthodox did not cut out the tongue of Saint Maximus the confessor as he was a firm defender of the Orthodox Church.

Read from your own recount of history that you’ve printed here. The “Orthodox” were in heresy. Maximus couldn’t put up with heresy. Ergo, neither could the Orthodox who were in heresy, put up with Maximus.

“The saint and two of his disciples were subjected to the cruelest torments. Each one’s tongue was cut out, and his right hand was cut off.Then they were exiled to Skemarum in Scythia, enduring many sufferings and difficulties on the journey.”
Matthew P.:

As far as your reference to Cyprian of Carthage here is “a quote from someone who has been studying and teaching such matters for a while.”

Whoever this “someone” is, who has been studying Cyptian for awhile, can’t deny Cyprian’s quote I gave?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I would have said the same myself if I were in Saint Cyprian’s slippers in the 3rd century.

Holy smokes!!! You mean you would admit that the pope was infallible? Here’s the flow of what was said.

You said
fr ambrose:

Saint Maximus projects the attitude of the early Church which venerated Rome highly but did not see its bishop as infallible and divinely safeguarded from teaching heresy.
*
**

And I responded
steve b:

And what about Cyprian of Carthage: “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”

Now if no errors can come from the chair of Peter in Rome, [let’s not forget, Cyprian is writing this letter to the pope], then “no errors can come from the chair of Peter” means the chair of Peter is infallible and so also all those who sit on that chair. That is what infallible means. Absent of error. And the EARLY CHURCH recognizes this charism already.

Therefore, your comment about St Maximus’s attitude towards Rome is incorrect.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Now if no errors can come from the chair of Peter in Rome

Sainy Cyprian did not say this. Read what he wrote again.

[let’s not forget, Cyprian is writing this letter to the pope], then “no errors can come from the chair of Peter”

Saint Cyprian did not say this.

Look more carefully at what he wrote.

“the seat of Peter… whither no errors can come?”

“Whither” is not “whence” which is how you instinctively prefer to read it, being a good Catholic apologist. But in fact “whither” is the very opposite of “whence,” as black is the opposite of white.

Now go and learn the correct meaning of “whither” and then read Saint Cyprian’s words with a better understanding

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

Be advised that you are incorrect again. The “Orthodox” had not been in heresy.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I believe that you have overstepped the bounds of civility and descended into an ad hominem. Show me where I have ever said that I do not forgive. We are commanded by the Lord to forgive seven times seventy.

How many times have I quoted on this Forum the words of Patriarch Paul when he dedicated the Memorial at Jasenovac concentration camp:

Forgive we must, forget we dare not.

---

---

Okay I’ll show you. Do you remember the following exchange?
steve b:

Your uncharitable contempt towards Catholics, in assuming the worst first, is unbecomming a priest in particular and a Christian in general. Try putting the sword away.

Your response to me was
fr ambrose:

I have no contempt for Catholics. “Assuming the worst…”? Unfortunately, once you move out of the much more tolerant American environment, you find that assuming the worst is justified by all historical contact between the two religions.

Tell me again how assuming the worst about Catholics fits in with “**Forgive we must, forget we dare not.” **

How does assuming the worst about Catholics fit in with forgiveness?.

---

---

fr ambrose:

How ghastly of you to actually bring down a spiritual judgement and say that there will be no forgiveness.

I can only presume that when you wrote this it was some late night hour where you live and your mind was not clear.

When you admit to me that you enter these conversations assuming the worst about Catholics I naturally question your motives here, and I question your use of the word forgiveness. At least you don’t show evidence of forgiveness towards Catholics my friend. And that is what I was drawing your attention to.

As St James says, paraphrased, don’t “tell” me you’ve forgiven Catholics, demonstrate it.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

I do, of course. Do you know about the life and teaching of Saint Silouan the Athonite? I spent a few months in Essex in the monastery of Fr Sophrony who was a disciple of Saint Silouan. A man of deep spirituality. He saw forgiveness and love for enemies as the distinguishing mark of a Christian. He taught that the soul cannot know peace until it prays for its enemies. He said that the soul which does not love its enemies will not be pleasing to God. I’ve always believed since childhood that we should pray for our enemies and for their salvation.

Photo of St Silouan
http://www.balamandmonastery.org.lb/fathers/fatherssilouanpic2.jpg

His icon
http://www.sspeterpaul.org/StSilouan.jpg

Fr. Ambrose,

It’s a beautiful Icon.

My father used to be a big fan of Thomas merton, who learned a lot from this man.

I was saying, not as much for their salvation, as their forgiveness.

We Irish have been wronged much, so we have to forgive much in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven.

I’ve been dealing with some rather nasty people else where and am quite tired.

Goodnight and God bless.

Please pray for the health of John Paul II.

Peace, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

But the point is that the Saint obviously did not see the Pope as protected from falling into heresy, and he was adamant that he would not commune if that were the case. Saint Maximus projects the attitude of the early Church which venerated Rome highly but did not see its bishop as infallible and divinely safeguarded from teaching heresy.

Fr. Ambrose:

It is my believe that the Grandies LIED and that St. Maximus discerned the evil in their hearts and saw through their LIE.

He didn’t have to make any theological commentaries to do that. He only needed to have the twin gifts of discernment and courage.

But, remember, even the conditions, which involvewd a pretty fair amount of imperial politics, do not speak to whether or not the Pope has the Spiritual Gift of Infallibilty (which is limited to certain specific situations) by virtue of the position to which he’s appointed.

I think the Prophecies of Pope Paul contained in Humanae Vitae and their fulfilment in modern society might be better evidence of that:

Pope Paul VI was prophetic…

*Archbishop Chaput also notes that Pope Paul VI warned of four cultural problems that would worsen, if Church teachings regarding married life and contraception were ignored:

1. The first would be a rise in “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.”
2. Second, men would lose respect for women, ignoring issues of their physical and emotional health even more than in the past and exploit them as instruments of selfish pleasure.
3. Third, contraception would be abused by “public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” Today, first-world leaders regularly export “contraceptives, abortion and sterilization” to developing nations, often as a prerequisite for financial aid.
4. Finally, human beings would be tempted to believe that they have “unlimited dominion” over their bodies.

Pope Paul VI was indeed a prophet.*

tldm.org/news4/contraception.htm

I’ve seen the statistics. They’re really quite staggerring, esp. in America and Western Europe.

Blessings on you and your health.

Good Night.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

I think the Prophecies of Pope Paul contained in Humanae Vitae and their fulfilment in modern society might be better evidence of that:

Pope Paul VI was prophetic…

*Archbishop Chaput also notes that Pope Paul VI warned of four cultural problems that would worsen, if Church teachings regarding married life and contraception were ignored:

1. The first would be a rise in “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.”
2. Second, men would lose respect for women, ignoring issues of their physical and emotional health even more than in the past and exploit them as instruments of selfish pleasure.
3. Third, contraception would be abused by “public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” Today, first-world leaders regularly export “contraceptives, abortion and sterilization” to developing nations, often as a prerequisite for financial aid.
4. Finally, human beings would be tempted to believe that they have “unlimited dominion” over their bodies.

Pope Paul VI was indeed a prophet.*

tldm.org/news4/contraception.htm

Perhaps Pope Paul’s words were prophetic only in the realm of Catholic and Protestant Christianity?

The Orthodox world, which allows a limited use of contraception, has a very low divorce rate and there has been no rise in “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.”

So our experience demonstrates that the Pope’s fears do not play out in the Orthodox world. It may not be possible to say that there is a direct correlation between contraception and the breakdown of marital life and marital fidelity.

Somebody should investigate why the Orthodox do not fulfil the papal prophecy. What factors in Orthodox marriages make them more permanant than in other Christian denominations?

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

Tell me again how assuming the worst about Catholics fits in with “**Forgive we must, forget we dare not.” **

How does assuming the worst about Catholics fit in with forgiveness?.

Suppose some friends of yours ask you to be guarantor for their credit card application. You agree, they get the card and subsequently run up a huge debt which they are unable to pay, and you as guarantor end up footing the bill. They are genuinely sorry for what they did and cut up their card. You of course forgive them.

Two months later they approach you again to be guarantor of a new credit card. Would you agree to it?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

Perhaps Pope Paul’s words were prophetic only in the realm of Catholic and Protestant Christianity?

The Orthodox world, which allows a limited use of contraception, has a very low divorce rate and there has been no rise in “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.”

So our experience demonstrates that the Pope’s fears do not play out in the Orthodox world. It may not be possible to say that there is a direct correlation between contraception and the breakdown of marital life and marital fidelity.

Somebody should investigate why the Orthodox do not fulfil the papal prophecy. What factors in Orthodox marriages make them more permanant than in other Christian denominations?

Fr. Ambrose:

Pope Paul’s prophecy pertained to the Western World as a whole, which, as you know, is l (esp. in Europe) largely NON-Churched, or attends Church rarely, and not just to Christians. Although, as Catholics and Protestants have strayed from the early teaching on this, we’ve joined the rest of the Western World.

The only Orthodox I know well are my hair-stylist and her brother. Both are Serbian Orthodox who were married in the Church who are now divorced. Another one visits my Church. He and his wife just had their second child - NO divorce for them…

As far as I can tell, the Orthodox had the same position as the Catholics on Artificial Contraception until the 1980’s. This poison starting working its way through the Western World in the 1930’s. So we had a 50 year head start on you.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ162.HTM

• Humanae Vitae* came out in 1968, 37 years after the Archbishop of Canterburry OK’d Artificial Contraception for Anglicans. Almost all Protestant denominations followed within the next 30 years.

You see, Fr., most of the world doesn’t get this, but the mentality that goes with using Artificial Contraception instead of abstaining and praying for 6 or 7 days ends up being poisonous to the couple’s relationships to each other and to God because it allows them to not communicate. It also encourages Pre-marital and Exra-marital activity, and that’s not good at all.

That can’t be good in the long-term, The Orthodox Church started hesitantly allowing Artificial Contaception less than 25 years ago, 15 years AFTER [IHumanae Vitae*. I suggest you wait another 35 years and see what its effects are on your Communities before you say that Pope Paul didn’t quite get the mark.

Remember, Fr, I came out of the Anglican Church, so I saw first hand what 47 years (before I left) of this could do to a Church The disasters we’re seeing in ECUSA and the C or E are now results of another 28 years added on to that first 47.

pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=143

This is one case where I’d love to be wrong, but that’s not very likely, I’m sorry to say. I believe that Fr. Kallistos Ware and a unbroken series of Orthosdox and Catholic Church Fathers had it right, and that the modern world simply has it wrong:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ274.HTM

May God take care of your health.

Peace be with you, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I’d like to make a comment that whenever Roman Catholics (and Catholics-in-waiting) engage the Orthodox in dialogue that sooner ot later, not matter what the topic of the thread, the Catholics will drag in either contraception or divorce. It’s a total fixation. It’s guaranteed to happen.

This started out as a discussion on Trinitarian theology - it’s now about contraception.

A few hours ago one of the moderators closed down the "What’s in a Name?" It had become fixated on contraception.

No matter what topic we start off discussing, Catholic apologists will bring in contraception or divorce. Why is this?

---

Traditional Ang:

Fr. Ambrose:

Pope Paul’s prophecy pertained to the Western World as a whole, which, as you know, is l (esp. in Europe) largely NON-Churched, or attends Church rarely, and not just to Christians. Although, as Catholics and Protestants have strayed from the early teaching on this, we’ve joined the rest of the Western World.

The only Orthodox I know well are my hair-stylist and her brother. Both are Serbian Orthodox who were married in the Church who are now divorced. Another one visits my Church. He and his wife just had their second child - NO divorce for them…

As far as I can tell, the Orthodox had the same position as the Catholics on Artificial Contraception until the 1980’s. This poison starting working its way through the Western World in the 1930’s. So we had a 50 year head start on you.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ162.HTM

• Humanae Vitae* came out in 1968, 37 years after the Archbishop of Canterburry OK’d Artificial Contraception for Anglicans. Almost all Protestant denominations followed within the next 30 years.

You see, Fr., most of the world doesn’t get this, but the mentality that goes with using Artificial Contraception instead of abstaining and praying for 6 or 7 days ends up being poisonous to the couple’s relationships to each other and to God because it allows them to not communicate. It also encourages Pre-marital and Exra-marital activity, and that’s not good at all.

That can’t be good in the long-term, The Orthodox Church started hesitantly allowing Artificial Contaception less than 25 years ago, 15 years AFTER [IHumanae Vitae*. I suggest you wait another 35 years and see what its effects are on your Communities before you say that Pope Paul didn’t quite get the mark.

Remember, Fr, I came out of the Anglican Church, so I saw first hand what 47 years (before I left) of this could do to a Church The disasters we’re seeing in ECUSA and the C or E are now results of another 28 years added on to that first 47.

pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=143

This is one case where I’d love to be wrong, but that’s not very likely, I’m sorry to say. I believe that Fr. Kallistos Ware and a unbroken series of Orthosdox and Catholic Church Fathers had it right, and that the modern world simply has it wrong:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ274.HTM

May God take care of your health.

Peace be with you, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose and anyone else who cares to listen:

Fr. ambrose:

I realize this is terribly tangential, but it’s not every day, or even every month, that someone tells substantially the same story one has lived through oneself…

Pontifications - Not in Kansas: Contraception

12.

*1. As I understand it, Lambeth approved contraception as something to be used only when there were strong reasons for not having another child. In any case, this seems to echo what Fr. Stephen is affirming here. It sounds pretty reasonable in theory. My question is how long did it take to go from that understanding to the idea that couples have a right to ÒplanÓ their families, ideally limiting them to two children? In the affluent West, it seems unlikely that many are choosing such small families due to genuine economic exigency. A couple of things happened, and pretty quickly. The ideal family size shrinks. And we get this idea that we have a right to dictate (plan) the size of our families. If we have a right to control our fertility, what happens when contraception fails? Abortion is a pretty natural second step. I can say, for sure, that when I was pro-choice, even after I saw that abortion involves taking a human life, I remained really stuck because I had an absolute commitment to the unexamined premise that people have a fundamental right to have children without becoming parents. ItÕs a long story, but I think you will find that this is the premise deep at the heart of pro-choice arguments that makes the pro-choice position hard to dislodge. In addition to shrinking families, and the idea that we have a right to rigid control over the number of children we will bring into the world, contraception certainly reduced the costs of extra-marital sex. It is hard to imagine that the sexual revolution would have gone anywhere if contraception werenÕt widely accepted and available. Now, I admit that correlation does not mean causation. But correlation doesnÕt mean thereÕs not causation either. It seems to me that it is possible that Lambeth has born some pretty bad fruits by cultivating a world in which Christians think that a marriage with one or two children has been sufficiently open to life, where an attitude about the right to control these things has become entrenched, an attitude which shapes the pro-abortion stance, and of course all of the ills of the sexual revolution. And if the fruits are bad, donÕt we have to go back and think harder about the teaching?

1. I am not sure that artificial contraception is compatible with a deeply sacramental view of marriage. It tells us that we can express something in our hearts (a desire for spiritual fruitfulness in the marriage) that we are denying with our body (by deliberately rendering the marital embrace physically sterile). It seems like artificial contraception invites us to see our bodies and our spirits as separate and not united, and I donÕt know how to reconcile that with a sacramental understanding of the world.
2. In the world of contraception (in which I grew up) we learn to think of our fertility as a disease which needs to be treated. What sort of distortion in language allows us to use the term Òreproductive healthÓ to talk about means for suppressing fertility and for terminating the unwanted pregnancies that result when our treatments for the disease of fertility have failed? I think this is particularly acute for women. Our bodies are designed to bear children. But if we are only to do that once or twice in a life time, the rest of the time our bodies are something we have to fight against. Is this compatible with a faith in which we are asked to believe that GodÕs creation is fundamentally good?

It sounds so reasonable to think that we might be able to use artifical contraception in order to alter the unpleasant facts about female physiology so that couples can enjoy the marital embrace without being weighed down by dozens of screaming children. But I do wonder about the effects of accomodating that reasonable notion. I wonder if it doesnÕt subtly make it harder to enter into a Christian understanding of the world by undermining our sense of trust in GodÕs providence, sacramentality, and the goodness of GodÕs creation.

Cheers,

Maggie

Comment by Maggie Ñ 5/21/2004 @ 11:51 pm*

pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=143

I assure you that I’m not Maggie and that the TAC hasn’t made the swim, yet…I can tell you that I was Pro-Choice once, and that it took an aweful lot to move me off the position, even after I realized that Abortion always took the life of a human being.

To those who think that Contraception is NO BIG DEAL, please, please, listen to this lady!

May God bless you with Long Life, Prosperity and MANY YEARS, Michael

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

I’d like to make a comment that whenever Roman Catholics (and Catholics-in-waiting) engage the Orthodox in dialogue that sooner ot later, not matter what the topic of the thread, the Catholics will drag in either contraception or divorce. It’s a total fixation. It’s guaranteed to happen . . .

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

To be perfectly fair, you were the first person to mention divorce in this thread, or maybe it was in the other thread regarding the filioque – either way, you brought it up first.

That’s not to say you’re not making a good observation, but . . .

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

To be perfectly fair, you were the first person to mention divorce in this thread, or maybe it was in the other thread regarding the filioque – either way, you brought it up first.

Nope, it was kicked off in Message #89 by Traditional Ang and it took off after his post…

Yes, I did bring it in (divorce) on the Filioque thread, to say that our different teachings on divorce may well keep us separate forever even if we can eventually solve the other major theological disputes.

But the usual technique of the Catholic apologists on board is to thow up their hands in horror and exclaim (usually when a thread is getting long and boring): You’re not even Orthodox. You are contaminated by divorce and contraception, so why should we listen to anything you say on any other topic?

And now - surely an all time low! - Maccabees has dragged in the topic of Orthodox monks and their nocturnal emissions!!! God spare us! This is in the thread Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Church Meeting. Of course nocturnal emissions have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion but Maccabees has found a new stick with which he can beat up the Orthodox! :banghead:

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

I used the recent rise in the rate of divorce in almost all Western Countries as congitrmation of a prophecy made by pope paul VI 37 years ago. A Prophecy that I didn’t believe until very recently when I noticed the causal effect of 70 years of Contraceptive Use and the mentality brought forth by the same on married relations and on society as a whole.
Fr Ambrose:

Nope, it was kicked off in Message #89 by Traditional Ang and it took off after his post…

Yes, I did bring it in (divorce) on the Filioque thread, to say that our different teachings on divorce may well keep us separate forever even if we can eventually solve the other major theological disputes.

Fr., you tried to confine that effect to the Western Churches by claiming that the Orthodox had allowed limited use of Contraceptives, ignoring that your experiment with them has lasted only 20 years so far, while they and the mentality and spiritual bankrupcy they bring has had 70 years to work on the Western Industrialized world.

May I ask? When have I ever doen this? If not, why are you generalizing when it obviously isn’t true of at least one of your correspondents?
Fr Ambrose:

But the usual technique of the Catholic apologists on board is to thow up their hands in horror and exclaim (usually when a thread is getting long and boring): You’re not even Orthodox. You are contaminated by divorce and contraception, so why should we listen to anything you say on any other topic?

I’ll let Fr. Ware and the conservatives who object to that within your our church do that. Esp., since I understand there’s is still controversy in Orthodoxy over the usage of Artificial Contraception?

Fr., why is Orthodoxy now leaving the Long Held (1900 years - see my LINK on my previous post to an ORTHODOX Source) Tradtion coming doen from the undivided Church, esp. given the exp. of those Churches and societies which have extensive experience with Artificial Contraception? Why are you changing the Teaching of the Church?

Fr., I’m surprised that you’re not mentioning how upset you are/were until now. I’ve read the thread to that point, and although Maccabbess had reason to feel provoked, he had no cause to write what he wrote.
Fr Ambrose:

And now - surely an all time low! - Maccabees has dragged in the topic of Orthodox monks and their nocturnal emissions!!! God spare us! This is in the thread Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Church Meeting. Of course nocturnal emissions have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion but Maccabees has found a new stick with which he can beat up the Orthodox! :banghead:

I saw that you replied to his post on the very next one, I’m surprised that you did not ask for an apology, I would have.

Maccabbees was clearly in the wrong on this one.

Regarding the topic of conversation - The Coptics have been and are Monophysites, and I don’t see that changing. That many Orthodox have made not praying with and talking to Catholics into part of their relifgion (at least in America):

Holy Canons Related to Ecumenism
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

This is also against the what Our Lord Himself prayed for in the Garden before he was crucified and aginst the 1 Epistle of John. I’m sorry, but I just can’t see how anyone can claim to LOVE someone they refuse to talk to and pray with or pray for, esp. when that leads to the excesses that Fr. Chrysostom talked about in his article:

praiseofglory.com/frchrysostom.htm

Blessings to you and your Congregation.

In Christ, Michael

 

[steve_b]

prodromos:

Suppose some friends of yours ask you to be guarantor for their credit card application. You agree, they get the card and subsequently run up a huge debt which they are unable to pay, and you as guarantor end up footing the bill. They are genuinely sorry for what they did and cut up their card. You of course forgive them.

Two months later they approach you again to be guarantor of a new credit card. Would you agree to it?

I answered Fr Ambrose with specifics not hypotheticals.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

You seem to be mistaking me for someone else…Remember. I’m NOT even a Catholic!

Could you please tell me how I could be a “Catholic Apologist”??

I was pointing out that Pope Paul had, IMO, demonstrated the Spiritual Gift of Prophecy.
Fr Ambrose:

I’d like to make a comment that whenever Roman Catholics (and Catholics-in-waiting) engage the Orthodox in dialogue that sooner ot later, not matter what the topic of the thread, the Catholics will drag in either contraception or divorce. It’s a total fixation. It’s guaranteed to happen.

This started out as a discussion on Trinitarian theology - it’s now about contraception.

A few hours ago one of the moderators closed down the "What’s in a Name?" It had become fixated on contraception.

No matter what topic we start off discussing, Catholic apologists will bring in contraception or divorce. Why is this?

---

My father DIED as an ORTHODOX in 1984!
At that time, the Antiochan Orthodox Church taught that Contraception was against the law of God and the teachings of the Church!

After his death, I jumped on the “Road to Jericho”, and ran out the church doors as fast as I could. If I hadn’t been dragged back in through the doors some 16 months ago, I would still be out there.

I knew that the Orthodox allowed divorce and remarriage in case of adultery, but I had NO idea that the Orthodox had begun to allow Contraception. Esp. since you guys used to be stronger on this than the Catholics.

Please forgive me if I’ve given offense.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

You seem to be mistaking me for someone else…Remember. I’m NOT even a Catholic!

But you’re in serious training to swim the Tiber That means that your apologetical skills are honed as never before!

My father DIED as an ORTHODOX in 1984!

God rest him.

I knew that the Orthodox allowed divorce and remarriage in case of adultery, but I had NO idea that the Orthodox had begun to allow Contraception. Esp. since you guys used to be stronger on this than the Catholics.
Please forgive me if I’ve given offense.

No offence taken. After weathering the Maccabees’ topic about monastic emissions, I don’t think much will ever faze me ever again.

But maybe we should all allow this thread to return to the topic of Trinitarian theology. There are several threads already devoted to divorce and contraception (I think the Catholics are secretly jealous of Orthodox on these points <stir, stir> ) It would be easy to find one and reactivate it?