Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think pretty much all of us would agree that an extreme medical situation could call for legitimate use of a preparation to prevent destruction or death of the person taking the preparation.
Given the international aspect of Christian forums, I find this forcing of North American culture rather tiresome. I have a sneaking suspicion that the whole reason for the recent upgrade was because someone in the management of the forums wanted to implement this 'feature' specifically for the USA tradition. I expect we will all get football helmets when the superbowl is on.Oh, and can somebody get these stupid pilgrim hats off our heads? The pilgrims and Puritans were extreme forms of Protestants that we actually have a serious theological problem with, and it actually bugs me to see them dancing on our images of icons
How to get rid of the holiday stuff:
1. Click on your name (top right of screen)
2. Click on this icon
3. Click on 'Preferences'
4. Scroll down to 'Disable Holiday Styling' and click to remove tickmark
5, Scroll down to 'Save' and click
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
no problem!Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I'm sorry, but if this is from Orthodox Ethos I can not take a grain of it seriously whatsoever. A priest who openly encouraged other priest to be disobedient to their bishops is not only that I would recommend to listen to on any other topic.I figured this video was a good recent example of conservative push back against the claim that the Orthodox Church no longer teaches against contraception. It reminds me of this quote from Palamas, because no one speaks this way anymore:
“For the physical impulse to reproduce is involuntary and does not obey the law of our mind, although some do bring it forcibly into subjection, while others chastely give rein to it solely for the purpose of betting children.” (Homily 52 Par 7)
I figured this is a worthy discussion.
I think your last paragraph is your real issue, not the controversies surround Father Peter Heers. BC is not "purely pastoral" any more than the Wed-Fri fasts and other disciplines. Saint Gregory Palamas unambiguously teaches what the sole purpose behind the procreative act and even says that this is a condescension for those who do not pursue complete chastity. That is the Orthodox doctrine. How spiritual fathers and their children in good faith work out their salvation in fear and trembling to attain to this ideal is something that requires the spiritual father like a doctor to navigate the thorny issues of life and our weaknesses. But this cannot be construed as there being no ideal and no absolute demand upon all of us to do everything we can to attain to that ideal.I'm sorry, but if this is from Orthodox Ethos I can not take a grain of it seriously whatsoever. A priest who openly encouraged other priest to be disobedient to their bishops is not only that I would recommend to listen to on any other topic.
Orthodoxy is against abortion. Other birth control methods, like the Pill, are de facto purely pastoral matters between a married couple and their confessor. It is not our business.
Quotes like the one from St. Gregory Palamas (only purpose of sexual intercourse being for procreation) are always tough to hear when someone is diagnosed with infertility. Thankfully Orthodoxy as a whole has a more comprehensive viewpoint when looking at all Church Fathers.I think your last paragraph is your real issue, not the controversies surround Father Peter Heers. BC is not "purely pastoral" any more than the Wed-Fri fasts and other disciplines. Saint Gregory Palamas unambiguously teaches what the sole purpose behind the procreative act and even says that this is a condescension for those who do not pursue complete chastity. That is the Orthodox doctrine. How spiritual fathers and their children in good faith work out their salvation in fear and trembling to attain to this ideal is something that requires the spiritual father like a doctor to navigate the thorny issues of life and our weaknesses. But this cannot be construed as there being no ideal and no absolute demand upon all of us to do everything we can to attain to that ideal.
Listen to what Paul says: “Because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”. These are the two purposes for which marriage was instituted: to make us chaste. Of these two, the reason of chastity takes precedence. When desire began, then marriage also began. It set the limits to desire by teaching us to keep to one wife. Marriage does not always lead to child-bearing, although there is the word of God which says, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” We have as witnesses all those who are married but childless. So the purpose of chastity takes precedence, especially now when the whole world is filled with our kind.
I do agree, A4C. That’s why I keep speaking of the consensus of the fathers. If we go with what just one or two saints or fathers said, leaving out everybody else, we take a real risk of going off the rails. There are so many things we find consensus on, and a right attitude toward sexuality is one of them. OTOH, if what one says is consistent with and not contradicting everything the others are saying, we do need to give it more weight even if we don’t like what is being said because it cuts across something that we want.Quotes like the one from St. Gregory Palamas (only purpose of sexual intercourse being for procreation) are always tough to hear when someone is diagnosed with infertility. Thankfully Orthodoxy as a whole has a more comprehensive viewpoint when looking at all Church Fathers.
I am glad that there are some passages that balance it out, such as this quote from St John Chrysostom.
From St John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life, trans., Catharine P. Roth and David Anderson (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986)
I have to generally disagree, EC.I'm sorry, but if this is from Orthodox Ethos I can not take a grain of it seriously whatsoever. A priest who openly encouraged other priest to be disobedient to their bishops is not only that I would recommend to listen to on any other topic.
Orthodoxy is against abortion. Other birth control methods, like the Pill, are de facto purely pastoral matters between a married couple and their confessor. It is not our business.
I do agree, A4C. That’s why I keep speaking of the consensus of the fathers. If we go with what just one or two saints or fathers said, leaving out everybody else, we take a real risk of going off the rails. There are so many things we find consensus on, and a right attitude toward sexuality is one of them. OTOH, if what one says is consistent with and not contradicting everything the others are saying, we do need to give it more weight even if we don’t like what is being said because it cuts across something that we want.
I agree with the approach to the Church Fathers, though I still disagree with the statement about the only purpose of sex being for procreation. I firmly believe the consensus of Orthodoxy, including Church Fathers and Bible is against that conclusion. I also am not throwing out the ideal because it is “unattainable”.Finally, abacabb3 is right in that there IS an ideal that we too quickly throw out the window as “unattainable”. It’s Aesop’s fox saying “sour grapes” that has us saying that either we don’t need, or even that there isn’t an ideal to strive for.
While obedience to bishops IS the general rule, there IS Orthodox precedent for disobedience to bishops - when bishops teach against the consensus of our Tradition.
I hope you didn’t get that I was suggesting that you were (throwing out the ideal). I am speaking very much in general.I agree with the approach to the Church Fathers, though I still disagree with the statement about the only purpose of sex being for procreation. I firmly believe the consensus of Orthodoxy, including Church Fathers and Bible is against that conclusion. I also am not throwing out the ideal because it is “unattainable”.
my Godfather would say (in addition to chastity) that oneness and procreation are the purposes of sex, and therefore require lifetime commitment. so yes, being one with your spouse is one of its purposes and you should draw together over a lifetime.I used to believe that sex can only be used for procreation and it's not supposed to be enjoyed, to my wife's chagrin. Then, she told me that sex can be used to bring us closer (her love language is physical touch at #1), and that even Chrysostom stated that sex can be used as a means to grow closer together. So, who knows? All I know is that our marriage has been better, and that she feels more loved as a result.
people don’t like the traditional Christian answers because they can be hard to hear and to live by. To see that “the Church no longer teaches“ anything, is an absurdity. Either its teachings or constant or they’re not, and if they’re not, then it’s not the Church.
I think pretty much all of us would agree that an extreme medical situation could call for legitimate use of a preparation to prevent destruction or death of the person taking the preparation. Of course, that is not what 99% of all efforts to get these things promoted are about. The Lambeth conference in 1930, approving the general use of contraceptives by Christians in the Anglican church, and subsequently in Protestantism in general, put an end to any hopes of Orthodox and Anglican unification. I think it is helpful to know what forces are especially interested in promoting birth control among the general population, especially the poor and to see that as a general movement, birth control really means birth prevention, and it is entirely antithetical to what we believe. As Chesterton said, it is used to filch the pleasure from a natural process while simultaneously thwarting that process, And that’s what most people want it for. They want to act and live as if the babymaking act was primarily for pleasure and bonding, and not really for the making of babies. But people don’t want to hear that, so they are going to do what they are going to do, and “Orthodox Christians” are going to seek Economia, and priests are going to give it even if it is countermanded by our tradition, generally speaking. Generally speaking, such priests do not know what they do.
Oh, and can somebody get these stupid pilgrim hats off our heads? The pilgrims and Puritans were extreme forms of Protestants that we actually have a serious theological problem with, and it actually bugs me to see them dancing on our images of icons.
Yeah, nothing blasphemous or insulting about sticking a cartoon hat on top of sacred icons, right? Totally kosher! Yeeesh.people don’t like the traditional Christian answers because they can be hard to hear and to live by. To see that “the Church no longer teaches“ anything, is an absurdity. Either its teachings or constant or they’re not, and if they’re not, then it’s not the Church.
I think pretty much all of us would agree that an extreme medical situation could call for legitimate use of a preparation to prevent destruction or death of the person taking the preparation. Of course, that is not what 99% of all efforts to get these things promoted are about. The Lambeth conference in 1930, approving the general use of contraceptives by Christians in the Anglican church, and subsequently in Protestantism in general, put an end to any hopes of Orthodox and Anglican unification. I think it is helpful to know what forces are especially interested in promoting birth control among the general population, especially the poor and to see that as a general movement, birth control really means birth prevention, and it is entirely antithetical to what we believe. As Chesterton said, it is used to filch the pleasure from a natural process while simultaneously thwarting that process, And that’s what most people want it for. They want to act and live as if the babymaking act was primarily for pleasure and bonding, and not really for the making of babies. But people don’t want to hear that, so they are going to do what they are going to do, and “Orthodox Christians” are going to seek Economia, and priests are going to give it even if it is countermanded by our tradition, generally speaking. Generally speaking, such priests do not know what they do.
Oh, and can somebody get these stupid pilgrim hats off our heads? The pilgrims and Puritans were extreme forms of Protestants that we actually have a serious theological problem with, and it actually bugs me to see them dancing on our images of icons.
It's funny when we find fathers saying things we do not like, we often try to find another father to invalidate what he says instead of harmonzing their statements. As for Saint John Chrysostom, he agrees 100% with St Gregory Palamas:Quotes like the one from St. Gregory Palamas (only purpose of sexual intercourse being for procreation) are always tough to hear when someone is diagnosed with infertility. Thankfully Orthodoxy as a whole has a more comprehensive viewpoint when looking at all Church Fathers.
I am glad that there are some passages that balance it out, such as this quote from St John Chrysostom.
From St John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life, trans., Catharine P. Roth and David Anderson (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?