NFP in Marriage?

gurneyhalleck1 · Aug 11, 2018

There are people in TAW, thankfully few, who probably would like to see that "guy" installed as a real bishop! LOL

~Anastasia~ said:
You missed Bishop Draperod? It wasn't that long ago I learned about him.

Read his full title on the ordination papers.

~Anastasia~ · Aug 11, 2018

gurneyhalleck1 said:
There are people in TAW, thankfully few, who probably would like to see that "guy" installed as a real bishop! LOL

Lord have mercy!

Anaxios ...

gzt · Aug 11, 2018

Platina said:
jckstraw's and Nutroll's statements are identical -- contraception is not the "standard" or not the "ideal," but there can be a conversation with a spiritual father. They are saying the exact same thing.

You're willing to call one extreme and not the other because of who posted them, not because of what they say.

all right, I'm back and can address this more - slow your roll, Jimmy.

so my positions here: Orthodoxy is not "against" contraception, contraception is not per se wrong, and that Trenham is toward one extreme of Orthodoxy. The stated position I am opposing is that Orthodoxy is against contraception and anybody who says otherwise is lying.

Nutroll says:

I haven't seen any statements that indicate that all uses of contraception are hunky dory. I see exactly these kind of statements that show it is not the ideal but that a conversation can be had with one's priest if someone is struggling.

Saying that something is "not ideal" is not the same as saying we are "against" it. The OCA statement says it's "acceptable", which much less gentle than "against". We can never allow something that is per se wrong. Further, Trenham is on the record as saying far more than the bare bones of jack's phrasing, which could describe a wide range of positions (... of which his is one extreme).

gzt · Aug 11, 2018

~Anastasia~ said:
I have to admit I'm curious - why would an Orthodox Christian use the name of "Swift Eagle Justice" as his personal tag?

Not to mention I think it's a tad reaching to say "every single Orthodox Church everywhere" promotes contraception.

We do not edify by goading - surely that's not what you want people to think?

View attachment 237568 View attachment 237569

Because he was a member of this board far before you, when we were making jokes about the guy.

gzt · Aug 11, 2018

Platina said:
The funny thing about contraception is that those who support it outright, no spiritual counsel needed, like to make it seem like they have a higher, more positive view of sex - like they really get how important it is ... but, in reality, they are the ones denigrating sex. Saying that the issue should just be up to the couple's conscience and no spiritual counsel is needed at least implicitly betrays the belief that sex has nothing to do with salvation. If you believed there was anything spiritual about it and that it plays into your salvation, you would seek spiritual counsel about this issue.

Otherwise, you admit the salvific aspect but just think yourself worthy of being your own spiritual guide.

Or, you fully realize the danger of this attitude, but just don't care.

This is just slander.

~Anastasia~ · Aug 11, 2018

gzt said:
Because he was a member of this board far before you, when we were making jokes about the guy.

Forgive me for being a newcomer.

MariaJLM · Aug 11, 2018

abacabb3 said:
While I am no one's spiritual father, so that I cannot speak of personal circumstances, I can speak more generally as some random guy on the internet.

I cannot think of any father of the Church ever who cited economic reasons to not have children. We don't see this until after the industrial revolution when the economic advantage of having children evaporated in urban centers.

So, while I may sinfully feel the tug to limit my family (and I have), I cannot in good faith say this is not sinful (i.e. missing the mark of Godliness) and this is something must work out with one's spiritual father.

Just because the Fathers didn't speak against it that doesn't mean we should do it. We need to consider our conditions and work within them. If a person cannot afford any more children then they should not be bringing them into the world, period. I'd say it's cruel actually since it could potentially lead to neglect. That said, I'd say neglecting children would probably be more sinful than not having them at all(provided they're not being aborted or something).

ArmyMatt · Aug 11, 2018

just because the Church is against something, that doesn't mean it's banned by the Church. the Church is against killing (even the guilty) yet the military and law enforcement are not banned from our service (no, I am not saying these are morally equivalent).

and it's Fr Josiah, not just Trenhem. just because you might not like what he says, you aren't on a last name basis with a priest.

gzt · Aug 11, 2018

Several people on here were citing by last name only.

ArmyMatt · Aug 11, 2018

that's true, and something should have been said earlier. but I just checked and saw only one, jckstraw should have said Fr Stanley Harakas.

but you don't justify wrong
behavior just because others did it

gurneyhalleck1 · Aug 11, 2018

Who are you talking to in this post, Father?

ArmyMatt said:
just because the Church is against something, that doesn't mean it's banned by the Church. the Church is against killing (even the guilty) yet the military and law enforcement are not banned from our service (no, I am not saying these are morally equivalent).

and it's Fr Josiah, not just Trenhem. just because you might not like what he says, you aren't on a last name basis with a priest.

ArmyMatt · Aug 11, 2018

gurneyhalleck1 said:
Who are you talking to in this post, Father?

folks who don't get how Church canon law works, and then gzt specifically.

gzt · Aug 11, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
f\gzt specifically.

And the other malefactor(s).

gzt · Aug 11, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
that's true, and something should have been said earlier. but I just checked and saw only one, jckstraw should have said Fr Stanley Harakas.

but you don't justify wrong
behavior just because others did it

Well, let me put it like this: we're referring to a lot of people's works and it's common to do so by last name. There are a lot of Frs. John. Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

ArmyMatt · Aug 11, 2018

gzt said:
And the other malefactor(s).

well, no, that was you since I was engaging you. my later comment brought up jckstaw's that I found.

ArmyMatt · Aug 11, 2018

gzt said:
Well, let me put it like this: we're referring to a lot of people's works and it's common to do so by last name. There are a lot of Frs. John. Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

even still, clergy should be addressed with their title because of the office they hold. Fr Meyendorff, Fr Hopko, Fr Rose, Fr Heers, Fr Schmemann, etc are all appropriate.

your comment doesn't help at all. for one, I wasn't asking for it, and for two, just using to defend refering to clergy inappropriately does not justify it.

and thanks, hope you have a nice day as well.

Lotar · Aug 11, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
and it's Fr Josiah, not just Trenhem. just because you might not like what he says, you aren't on a last name basis with a priest.

It's more convenient to just refer to him as He who must not be named, the Mouth of Sauron, or something similar.

~Anastasia~ · Aug 11, 2018

Ok folks, reminder of the rules -

Offensive derogatory nicknames and egregious inflammatory comments about public figures may be considered goading.

Fr. Matt has rightly commented on how clergy are addressed by Orthodox Christians. Even if you don't agree with what a priest says, that's no reason to mock him.

gzt · Aug 11, 2018

The same consideration should of course be extended to comments about Met. Kallistos.

ArmyMatt · Aug 11, 2018

gzt said:
The same consideration should of course be extended to comments about Met. Kallistos.

of course, I only read Harakas as opposed to Fr Stanley. certainly no one should just call Met Kallistos by his last name only, and I hope I wasn't the one who did.

NFP in Marriage?

Reader

† Handmaid of God †

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

† Handmaid of God †

Crazy Cat Lady

Regular Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Regular Member

Reader

Regular Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Regular Member

Regular Member

Swift Eagle Justice

† Handmaid of God †

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Regular Member

Similar threads