Good to see a priest promoting the traditional views on life in Russia...

always good to see a more conservative voice.

This is of course not the consensus view in Orthodoxy, there are a variety of perspectives. We have to be careful about what we label as "traditional", as well.

As for monarchy, I sincerely hope not. Fortunately, it is by no means obligatory (and, again, how "traditional" is it, really? This is more "nostalgic" for a time that never really was).

He's completely right on contraception. There has only been dissenting views since like the 1970s. Modern academic theologians have no authority to change the Tradition.

I have to agree with @gzt here, especially regarding the monarchy. If things were so spiffy when the ROC was effectively a branch of the imperial government, then why was the empire so poorly run that so many Orthodox people went whole hog over to the Reds when they hijacked the February Revolution? Not because they were brainwashed by "leftist professors," but because it seemed like anything would be an improvement.

I understand that the whole question of the monarchy is a rather painful subject for many, and I don't mean to speak lightly about it or to minimize - at all - the horrorsof the Soviet period, but those of us in the West - and I include myself here - with an interest in Russia and in the OC would do well to remember that it wasn't all hesychasm, Optina Elders, and some kind of Golden Age of "traditionalism."

Fr. Dmitry says here "Yet women work, they study, they do everything... . . . but they prevent the birth of children" - now, we don't have a full transcript, so this may be a bit out of context - but given what we have here, it sounds like his perspective is that "women" as a group have decided capriciously to use contraception. But we might recall that many young women in Russia (not to mention other countries) work themselves to exhaustion just to survive and scrape by for another month. Many live with their mothers in a one-room apartment and have little opportunity even to meet anyone, let along to do anything that could result in pregnancy! Yes, of course, young men and women do use contraceptive devices and methods. And many of them live in terror of tomorrow, in crushing poverty, and yes, some of them - married or not - have sexual relationships and use contraception - not because they want to protect themselves "from what? From children. As if children were frightful criminals!" - but because they are afraid to procreate when they can hardly take care of themselves.

I know a number of Russian women of childbearing age, some with children, some without. I don't know whether they use contraception or what kind, but I do know that I've never heard even one of them speak of her children, or children as a group, as if they were "criminals." Where is the evidence for this attitude?

Anyway, here is a somewhat official document which touches on that theme: https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/

Keep in mind that Fr. Dimitry is a representative for the Patriarchal Commission for Family and the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood. That is, he speaks on behalf of the Russian Church on such matters.

Note that the Basis of the Social Concept mentions only abstinence in terms of acceptable contraception.

How traditional do we want to get here, exactly? After a young woman is married, how many pregnancies should she carry to term? As many as possible? 6 is made to sound like a good number - how about 13? 15? Is the age of consent in Russia at present permissible, or is that, too, not traditional?

Those are questions for a couple's spiritual father.

jckstraw72 said:

Those are questions for a couple's spiritual father.

Click to expand...

Fr. Dmitriy didn't refrain from giving us numbers that he seems to find generally applicable. So it's reasonable to ask for more generally applicable numbers.

jckstraw72 said:

Those are questions for a couple's spiritual father.

Click to expand...

Further, one assumes that any given spiritual father has little direct control over the age of consent.

jckstraw72 said:

Note that the Basis of the Social Concept mentions only abstinence in terms of acceptable contraception.

Click to expand...

It also only condemns abortifacient methods and is by no means saying that only that is acceptable.

Anyway, people may also enjoy this recently-published reflection which makes reference to the above: https://frsergei.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/sex-and-contraception-in-a-christian-marriage/

gzt said:

As for monarchy, I sincerely hope not. Fortunately, it is by no means obligatory (and, again, how "traditional" is it, really? This is more "nostalgic" for a time that never really was).

Click to expand...

Really? Then why did Christ come to establish His Kingdom on earth? Kingdoms have kings and queens. The model for the monarchy is the Suzerainty Covenant Kingdoms of the Middle East in the time of Abraham.

I think this is desperately needed. I despise the hellish idea of "democracy," which is nothing more than mob rule by the biggest mob. And God help you if you are not in the biggest mob and they take a disliking to you, like the Demmycrats here in America.

Light of the East said:

Really? Then why did Christ come to establish His Kingdom on earth? Kingdoms have kings and queens. The model for the monarchy is the Suzerainty Covenant Kingdoms of the Middle East in the time of Abraham.

I think this is desperately needed. I despise the hellish idea of "democracy," which is nothing more than mob rule by the biggest mob. And God help you if you are not in the biggest mob and they take a disliking to you, like the Demmycrats here in America.

Click to expand...

yes, but Christ's kingdom is not an earthly one. He actually warns the ancient Israelites about getting a worldly king. and I say this as someone who hopes the Tsar comes back should the Slavs want one.

Light of the East said:

I think this is desperately needed. I despise the hellish idea of "democracy," which is nothing more than mob rule by the biggest mob. And God help you if you are not in the biggest mob and they take a disliking to you, like the Demmycrats here in America.

Click to expand...

Monarchy can be hellish too. Russia has one prime example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Novgorod

Political systems aren't perfect in any implementation, but I'll take a chance with "mob rule" over a tyrant with a mental disorder.

Light of the East said:

Really? Then why did Christ come to establish His Kingdom on earth? Kingdoms have kings and queens. The model for the monarchy is the Suzerainty Covenant Kingdoms of the Middle East in the time of Abraham.

I think this is desperately needed. I despise the hellish idea of "democracy," which is nothing more than mob rule by the biggest mob. And God help you if you are not in the biggest mob and they take a disliking to you, like the Demmycrats here in America.

Click to expand...

You can get in a heap of trouble under a monarchy, too.

What kind of monarchy are you envisioning?

Light of the East said:

Really? Then why did Christ come to establish His Kingdom on earth? Kingdoms have kings and queens. The model for the monarchy is the Suzerainty Covenant Kingdoms of the Middle East in the time of Abraham.

I think this is desperately needed. I despise the hellish idea of "democracy," which is nothing more than mob rule by the biggest mob. And God help you if you are not in the biggest mob and they take a disliking to you, like the Demmycrats here in America.

Click to expand...

When the scriptures say the leaders are in power because of God, he meant of monarchs as monarchies have universally been recognized as of God. In democracies we the people put leaders in place, we have made ourselves God. In fact I dont think if the liturgy was created today there would even be prayers for our political leaders. They come and go being nothing more than man made appointments who dont require prayer.

buzuxi02 said:

When the scriptures say the leaders are in power because of God, he meant of monarchs as monarchies have universally been recognized as of God. In democracies we the people put leaders in place, we have made ourselves God. In fact I dont think if the liturgy was created today there would even be prayers for our political leaders. They come and go being nothing more than man made appointments who dont require prayer.

Click to expand...

Do you mean Romans or 1 Peter?

If monarchs are "universally" recognized as of God, why has it happened so often that the monarch is deposed and a new one set up? What kind of succession guarantees that the next monarch is approved?

archer75 said:

Do you mean Romans or 1 Peter?

If monarchs are "universally" recognized as of God, why has it happened so often that the monarch is deposed and a new one set up? What kind of succession guarantees that the next monarch is approved?

Click to expand...

Orthodoxy recognizes that sometimes monarchs deteriorate into tyrants. A tyrant can be deposed.
Historically monarchs have always been recognized as of a divine appointment meaning the very office was of a divine appointment hence why kings were coronated in ornate religious ceremonies.
From the Pharoahs, to the last emperor of Japan. Jesus God incarnate himself was/is recognized as a king, roman emperors claimed of being born of virgin births etc. The Hebrew kings and the prophets of old were the only ones to have the Spirit of God upon them etc.
How succession is achieved is a path we can cross when we come to it. But what we do know is that it's easier to change things with a monarch than with democracy. A king does not want an uprising and is to uphold the traditions of his people and ancestors. Democracy uses manipulation and self created opposing divisions to crush any uprising, mob rule of divide and conquer. The Americans rebelled against the Crown but now we are taxed 10,000 times worse with no recourse; debt slaves. Once you overthrow both crown and altar it's over.