Not to be pedantic, but no - he published the book in 1963 as a layman and was tonsured a monk in 1966. That's why the book was originally published under the name "Timothy". Kallistos was his name after tonsure. And unless you have access to some written or spoken teaching from him, you don't know what his thoughts were - he doesn't say "this is what I teach about birth control" but instead reports on his view of the status.

I think the problem here is one of the main issues between the RCC and the East. You have a legal tradition, we have a pastoral one. There is no equivalent publication to the catechism of the Roman church in the east. There was never an equivalent to a scholastic movement which sought to define the faith in a rigorous, systematic way. So the amount of affirmative, dogmatic teachings and statements in the east are few, and the way these things are handled are different.

The approach is much similar to what we see in Exodus - what is called casuistic, where principles are laid out and judgment is made. This is exactly what Moses does - and why the Lord explains divorce as something Moses did out of pastoral economy. That does not make divorce good, but it also does not make what Moses did wrong.

So here the approach is simple. What is the purpose of intercourse in marriage? Both for chastity and procreation. You can't do one without the other, it can't be purely physical gratification, it can't be abusive or selfish, etc. And St John Chrysostom actually says the unitive is the primary part - "marriage was granted for the sake of procreation, but an even greater reason was to quench the fiery passion of our nature." It is the West's reliance on St Augustine that focused them so hard on procreation (and led them down the road to the idea that virginity is superior to marriage, rather than simply different - an error which was a major part of the Reformation, as well).

And yet the RCC endorses natural family planning. You handwave this away as "abstinence" but abstinence it is not. It is contraception, because by its very nature you are doing something to be able to engage in sex while intentionally avoiding procreation. It is no different than withdrawal. This is not me here saying it is wrong, but this is me saying it is qualitatively no different from the principles the fathers use than any other non-abortifacient birth control because it intentionally seeks to decouple one from the other. Which is why the official RCC position is that to engage in NFP requires "just and grave causes."

There's no list of "just and grave causes" formally defined as far as I can tell. I suspect most people engaging in NFP simply don't want any more kids or want any more kids right now. That is just as much a separation of the two sides of union as withdrawal or hormonal birth control, and also be suspect from a patristic point of view.

So the test for hormonal birth control - or any new technology on any thing - is to understand again from principle, casuistically, how it fits in with the purpose for which humans live. Make no mistake - NFP is technology! The scientific understanding of fertility has dramatically improved on this regard, making NFP much more effective. The difference between non-abortifacient hormonal birth control and NFP is not of kind but only a question of efficacy. They have exactly the same purpose and can all both be used inappropriately.

Quote:

---

Now you can say people may abuse abstinence by applying too much science in order to thwart more life, but it's nowhere near the same thing as artificially sterilizing yourself or your wife for the sake of having sex without concern for a new baby

---

And the above is why this is just pure rationalization. A fiction. Copium. They both are the same, one is simply a more effective method.

Now. How do we understand this? Only by a casuistic and pastoral approach! You have two competing or conflicting things, people living their lives and hopefully trying their best within their circumstances, and the fundamental purpose of the marriage act. And the pastoral conclusion here is that when they compete there is a right and wrong way to "break the tie". You have to give guidance to parishioners about what is good and bad, and yes, condescend to their weakness as Moses did. This is not perfect but it is reality. So the RCC says it is better to engage in NFP with just and grave reasons than to get a vasectomy. It is better to do NFP than withdrawal. It is better (in my opinion) to do NFP than hormonal birth control. But it is also better to do hormonal birth control than have affairs or abortions.

You can be shocked by this, but 25% of abortions in the US in the past were from self-identifying Catholics - double that of Evangelicals. Catholics are reported to use contraception more than anyone else! So we see sanction also exists in the form of pastoral tolerance, which we can only divide from teaching through sophistry. What does it matter what the church "officially" teaches if the people and the clergy ignore it en masse? The teaching is the life of the church.

Does economy exercised because of the hardness of hearts change teaching? No. But as we see with your attitudes here, it can absolutely lead to a rationalization and legalistic fiction of right and wrong, even with someone who is sincerely trying to take a right moral stand. So much for NFP vs hormonal birth control.

Quote:

---

*I fail to understand how the EO arrive at "official teaching" or something like it, so if these aren't definitive enough examples, I'm open to hearing what does qualify as definitive*

---

Now for the teaching of bishops. As said, Moses role was to apply the teaching. When God commands sacrifice, Moses elaborates on that, saying things God did not tell him (Exodus 13). He interprets and applies.

Official teachings are few - scripture, canons. Applications are many. Just as you see your pope making a distinction between NFP and onanism (ie that of "frustrating the marriage act") he is making a judgment. For you, when it is published it becomes an "official teaching".

For us, it remains the teaching of a bishop. It may be right - hopefully so! But no person, no bishop speaks for the church. "Official teaching" is only really identified in hindsight. There have been failed or robber councils, antipopes, corrupt popes, corrupt bishops. Robber councils, too, say "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us".

Are some bishops in error on this? Probably. But their error does not become "teaching" because nothing can change the confession of the church re: the purpose of the marriage act. The EO does not function in a legal fashion like the RCC. It is much closer to St Vincent of Lerins - "we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

Quote:

---

Divorcing and remarrying was taught as specifically condemned prior, but now taught as possible by the EO

---

Divorce is a reality of a sinful world. The Church does not condone divorce, but recognizes that it happens and, again, condescends as to what to do when marriages fail. Because the sad fact is that some will. Sometimes marriages fail through no fault of one person. I have seen this happen. What is best for a person who has a wife who leaves them? For a wife who has a husband abuse them? Canons are given for the care of people - sabbath for man, etc. Bishops must apply them as best they can. And so the Church condescends in economy for remarriage, but also puts hard limits on the end of economy.

Far better that, in my opinion, than a hard line that leaves no room for people and forces people to choose, for example, between a legal fiction in an annulment or leaving their church over a marriage which is long since past the point of recovery.

Quote:

---

It was teaching that caused schism, so I don't know why you keep driving at the liturgical changes as some sort of proof that Catholicism is wrong or a barrier to reunification.

---

Yeah - no. This is because you're RCC, and as we have seen in this discussion, you work from law out. The EO church works form praxis out. When EO theologians have tried to systematize it, they have said that the first thing is dogmatic fact, which is the life of the Church. That dogmatic fact contains doctrinal teachings as a part of its essence in many forms... the scriptures, hymns, prayers, liturgics, pastoral texts. When those teachings are ratified or affirmed, they become crystalized into language as dogma. Dogmatic fact is Holy Tradition.

So I fundamentally disagree. You can go into any parish you like and know whether they are practicing the same faith. There are obviously non-material differences in how this can look - accidents, to use Aristotle. But there are also changes which can be essential change, regardless of whatever formal teaching is used to justify them or hovers over or around them, or is formally maintained untethered by what actually happens, the actual life of the church.

You cannot have the correct teaching of the faith and simultaneously not have the correct praxis. Faith, praxis, teaching, tradition, worship, they're all of a piece.

That's why I say it is sophistry to say well all this changing is happening but this teaching over here is not changing. It doesn't make any sense. One flows into the other.

Quote:

---

your side has more change where it matters most. If your church is potentially sanctioning sinful actions denounced by all the fathers, that is a much larger change than anything we have. Chaos? Definitely us. But this is a result of being over a billion person church locked in consistent debate with what is now almost another billion Christians for 500 years.

---

so - as we have seen, the first part is not happening. and so instead, the "small regional sect" of 240 million Christians maintains an unbroken faith, praxis, liturgics, and formal teaching despite the twin scourges of communism and Islam. While the church in the West separated herself from the rest of the church over their unilateral change in confession and fractured into countless schisms, and is now changing praxis to the point that some of her own faithful do not recognize their liturgical rites any more. The claims of the papacy produce the very schisms you're using to justify the chaos.

**I shouldn't have responded so late. I was tired and come across as much more cranky here than I intended. For that, I apologize. I have found this conversation to be very enlightening despite some of the frustrations that I have and I appreciate you sharing as much as you have. I'll try to watch my tone in the future, and will leave the harsher post here as to not hide from it**

Sorry, I meant he was in whatever process yall call becoming a monk. He was at a Monastery at the time. Regardless, he amended his own work multiple time after ordination and his rise to bishop and it states very different teachings. This is easy to see.

But let's just toss the whole "change" thing out, despite the NUMEROUS church fathers condemning it. Some bishops are ignoring that tradition (while not being able to ignore other teachings and the reasoning for each is very grey) and other bishops aren't. So if I'm under an EO bishop that prohibits it, I can just realign with one who does permit it. And we're supposed to call that a united church? If they disagree on what is sin, and we agree that sin separates us from God, they are only united because they choose not to say the other teaches immorality. I don't know how this isn't a grave matter.

I'll keep the rest of it simple. Fertile sperm going into a fertile uterus prior to or after an egg descending is nothing like wasting sperm in an artificially infertile uterus. The pill makes the uterus hostile to an embryo (which is why it's listed as a potential abortifacient). A condom wastes the sperm, just like pulling out. One is open to an "oops" (our last two children came sooner than expected, so I speak with experience). The others leading to a pregnancy are a medical/manufactural failure to prevent conception (again, condemned by many church fathers). Working with the bodies and minds God gave us is radically different than introducing a foreign object/chemical/etc into our bodies to stop our bodies from doing what they were created to do. There is no doubt that NFP works with our nature and ALL OTHER methods are designed to stop our bodies from doing what God created them to do. The only way for you to equate the two is to describe abstinence as a whole as contraceptive.

I was up to 4 paragraphs of details and had so many more to go that I deleted them. You don't seem open to this at all so I'll save my time unless you indicate otherwise. I'll leave it at this: this is a new teaching in orthodoxy and a rejection of the historical norms. Multiple orthodox leaders praised Humanae Vitae when it was written. The Chrysostom quote can be traced back to exactly one book, published in 1982 by a random lady with two kids and an orthodox priest that is now a Ukrainian Catholic priest. If I thought it was worth the money, I'd buy it to check its sources, but since I couldn't find the line in question anywhere else on the internet after hours of searching, I doubt it's worth it. Even funnier is that, if this quote is true, he says the marital act is mostly about avoiding sinful sex. "Unitive" is not equal to "quenching fiery passions". Also read as "horny".

The church fathers were unanimous in sex being for procreation. It was held "everywhere always by all". Any other view was never held "everywhere always by all".

The pastoral approach is how to help the sinner come to see their sin and repent. Not to look at a sin and say "they're gonna do it anyway, so let's give them some guidelines". Saying someone is abusing NFP if not justifying a split of the unitive and procreative. It's saying that it's possible to remove the procreative out entirely, which is sinful and needs to be addressed. Saying that it's ok to intentionally remove the procreative is the opposite, not a pastoral discernment. You don't see this because you do not see the difference between artificially breaking our nature versus working with it. This is why your orthodox ancestors praised Humane Vitae, and modern EOs don't. I wish it would have stuck.

Out of fatigue and laziness I'll respond succinctly to the rest but one point I'll save for last:


- Higher than evangelical in abortions "in the past" is vague. Can you give me a time frame to reference?
- Catholics use contraception. Yes. Ideally they repent in the confessional and stop. Most likely don't understand the teaching and are taught by the culture instead. I pray for mercy for all. *
- Catholics going against teaching IS NOT a sanction or pastoral tolerance. If the sinner does not confess the sin, how is the pastor to tell them otherwise? It should be ridiculous to assert that, but likewise will save to the end *
- I don't like the use of statistics of self identified adherents as a metric of denominational teachings. Catholic and EO have the same birth rate, which is abysmal. If we want to use statistics, apparently neither of us is open to life *
- Robber councils either excluded Rome or rejected the Roman delegates that tried to attend. I remember researching all of this for a rather hostile Lutheran poster on this board. Unless you have examples you'd like me to consider otherwise, I'll leave it at that*
- Anti popes didn't do any official teaching. As you've noted, that doesn't mean much to the EO, but it's the foundation of which we base our claim of papal authority. If you want a deeper explanation, I am willing.
- So a bishop may actively teach their flock error and it's just a "meh"? How big of an error does it have to be before it becomes an issue? Y'all just had another schism, so there is obviously some line in the sand. Is it simply national politics?*
- Divorce is a sinful reality… so you certify the sin? You don't look them in the eye, tell them they have sinned and/or are the victim of another's sin but they are married as Jesus has said and to remarry is to become an adulterer? Sure, you can appeal to Moses, but we can appeal to Jesus here. Why go back further if not to find a way to make something work that the church fathers are UNANIMOUS against. This is a new teaching that just so happened to formalize right after the schism. Divorce is a sin. Remarriage is a sin. The EO seems to give sacramental rites to this sin. I see no way around this. Sacramental rites to a sin is egregious.
- Chrysostom mentioned annulment in one of the homilies I found while trying to find that elusive quote that seems to have never been.(1 Corinthians 7:15 homily)
- More importantly, The council of Trullo (accepted as ecumenical by the orthodox) mentions a marriage being null as if the reader should be well aware of its meaning.
- Divorce was mentioned in that councils documents, so the delineation was there.
- You ignored the fact that East and West have never had the same liturgy
- You ignored the fact that the Western liturgy changed at least twice in the early centuries and didn't cause schism
- You ignored the fact that there are liturgies that are identical (or 98%+) to Orthodox Churches that are in communion with our church. Do you care to break down how they have fallen into the evil clutches of "Rome" despite their praxis?
- If our liturgy truly consecrates the host, what has changed outside of how the looks? I ask again: is the liturgy why we show up or is the body, blood, soul and divinity of our lord in the Eucharist why we show up? If it's the second, you have to prove our liturgy doesn't accomplish that. Inane as it may be, either Jesus is present in the Eucharist or He isn't. Don't dance around it.
- If He is present, then liturgical reforms, good or bad, are not worthy of schism. Thankfully historical record shows this to be true.
- Ramble all you want about how the liturgy determines all else, but if you are waiving away the fact that your current bishops may or may not actively sanction sin, the liturgy must not have saved the EO in any special way
- Frankly, I'm tired of being told I'm hand waving away teachings I have spent considerable time understanding. I'm tired of what appears to be (forgive me if I'm wrong) an incredibly condescending approach to Catholicism and the west in general, when the west makes up roughly 2 billion of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world today. Keep on saying that the teachings on divorce and remarriage, as well as contraception, are pastoral issues. Until you're willing to consider anything contrary, all attempts are futile. The west is in one schism because it was determined the See of Peter was not in charge by a schismatic. That schismatic propagated his theories quite effectively, and had many sub-schisms of his movement. The only difference between the Great Schism and the Reformation was "sola scriptura" and the printing press which necessarily go together.
- As I've said to the Protestants on here, the church isn't "Roman". That's a slur invented by the Anglicans. We are the Catholic church with number of different rites, united under the See of Rome. If you want to call us Romans, it is either ignorance or to inflame. It's hard to see this as charitable unless you see geography as a legitimate line of demarcation of ultimate authority.
- Your last paragraph reads to me incoherently, so I assume I misunderstand. Having unity by being autocephalous? Becoming one by having multiple heads? So the best way to have a unified marriage is to have two heads of the family? The best way to run a company is to have two (or more) heads? Why would having an "American Church" be a path to unity of the church globally?

*Last one: I asked before, when you stated that the bishops aren't the church and the church rejected it… you talk of being subject to the bishop. If the bishops unanimously teach something that the faithful overwhelmingly reject, what happens? It sounds to me that the bishops may serve by the permission of the faithful and not by ordained right.

Quote:

---

Some bishops are ignoring that tradition (while not being able to ignore other teachings and the reasoning for each is very grey) and other bishops aren't. So if I'm under an EO bishop that prohibits it, I can just realign with one who does permit it. And we're supposed to call that a united church? If they disagree on what is sin, and we agree that sin separates us from God, they are only united because they choose not to say the other teaches immorality. I don't know how this isn't a grave matter.

---

I don't know what bishops are ignoring that tradition, but some may be. And no, "bishop hopping" is not a thing. I mean, I'm sure someone has done it, but that's not how it works. You are under obedience to a bishop, or a spiritual father who is to a bishop.

The only difference in this between the RCC and the EO is you have a guy at the top, and when he says the answer, it is definitive. In the meantime they function identically. The do not make this definitive answer like this but instead in collective way, through local synods, and ultimately if necessary through ecumenical councils. But no councils make new teaching, they simply affirm what came before and clarify as necessary. It functions the same way in the interim period, with the only difference being the centralized vs diffuse authority.

For example - there were bishops who opposed, vocally, papal infallibility. Here's a short paper about one of them - Peter Kenrick, Archbishop of St Louis. He openly taught that papal infallibility was not part of tradition, and worked very hard to prevent the vote at Vatican I from supporting it. The vote carried the day - notably those opposed chose to not be present rather than vote against - and this thing became or was declared to be not a question of theology but a matter of faith. Does this make Peter Kenrick and the 50+ other bishops heretics? Does it break his unity? Does it represent a change in the RCC teaching?

Now, what if there is a council and the topic of hormonal birth control comes up? Let's say someone, even an archbishop, worked very hard to prevent a statement condemning birth control from being put into place, but in the end, they were wrong. Did that make them heretics? Did it break unity? Did it represent a change in the EO teaching?

I say - each EO bishop functions as your pope - and you conclude - then each EO bishop is a church unto himself. So you're right, I need to amend my statement. Each EO bishop functions as your pope should, excepting abuses of universality. Which means he has the authority your pope does, but in no way is able to unilaterally declare any teaching by virtue of their office, and his jurisdiction is limited to his episcopacy.

Quote:

---

One is open to an "oops"

---

All are open to "oops". Again, this is a question of efficacy.

Quote:

---

Working with the bodies and minds God gave us is radically different than introducing a foreign object/chemical/etc into our bodies to stop our bodies from doing what they were created to do

---

I mean, this is just, like, your opinion, man. Birth control is working with bodies and minds the same as NFP, only with added steps.

Quote:

---

There is no doubt that NFP works with our nature and ALL OTHER methods are designed to stop our bodies from doing what God created them to do.

---

As you note the Orthodox were positive about Humanae Vitae. We, however, do not agree with the philosophical argument from natural law. So here is our difference.

Quote:

---

The only way for you to equate the two is to describe abstinence as a whole as contraceptive.

---

No, because abstinence is by definition not having sex. NFP is having sex in such a way that intentionally avoids conception. It is a way of preventing pregnancy. It is a method of contraception - and is defined that way by various medical groups. You yourself say, oops are possible. That means you were actively trying to not have a kid. This is the Orthodox teaching, by the way.

Quote:

---

The Chrysostom quote can be traced back to exactly one book, published in 1982

---

? It's from On Virginity.

"So marriage was granted for the sake of procreation, but an even greater reason was to quench the fiery passion of our nature. Paul attests to this when he says: 'But to avoid immorality, every man should have his own wife.' He does not say: for the sake of procreation. Again, he asks us to engage in marriage not to father many children, but why? So 'that Satan may not tempt you,' he says. Later he does not say: if they desire children but 'if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry."

Quote:

---

The church fathers were unanimous in sex being for procreation. It was held "everywhere always by all". Any other view was never held "everywhere always by all".

---

Not what I said. St John did not support that intercourse was exclusively for procreation. Some fathers did. For example, St John supported married couples continuing in intercourse after pregnancy is no longer possible (example in Homily 5 on Titus "no one blamed him who cohabited with his wife according to law, even to old age, but all blamed him who hoarded money"). The west, following St Augustine tend to come to the view that it was primarily for procreation, but the east did not.

Quote:

---

This is why your orthodox ancestors praised Humane Vitae, and modern EOs don't.

---

They agreed with the conclusions, but not the natural law philosophy that arrived there, which is why you - contra the fathers - are justifying contraception by NFP... even perhaps against the explicit guidance of the RCC which requires a just and grave reason. Are finances just and grave? Inconvenience?

- Higher than evangelical in abortions "in the past" is vague. Can you give me a time frame to reference?
I don't support or like Guttmacher, but they are the best data available. Here.

- Catholics use contraception. Yes. Ideally they repent in the confessional and stop. Most likely don't understand the teaching and are taught by the culture instead.
If it was 50/50 I'd agree. Every poll I can see indicates it is essentially all. This is a teaching issue, or tacit acceptance. (Problematic across faith in different ways).

- So a bishop may actively teach their flock error and it's just a "meh"? How big of an error does it have to be before it becomes an issue? Y'all just had another schism, so there is obviously some line in the sand. Is it simply national politics?*
It's just reality. We both believe the church can't err. You apply this through a single office. We do not. The Church is not the pope, and it isn't the bishop. We don't have a schism. A break in union is not schism - not formally. As I said before, schism is when one church sets up a parallel structure against the other.

Quote:

---

- Divorce is a sinful reality… so you certify the sin? You don't look them in the eye, tell them they have sinned and/or are the victim of another's sin but they are married as Jesus has said and to remarry is to become an adulterer? Sure, you can appeal to Moses, but we can appeal to Jesus here. Why go back further if not to find a way to make something work that the church fathers are UNANIMOUS against. This is a new teaching that just so happened to formalize right after the schism. Divorce is a sin. Remarriage is a sin. The EO seems to give sacramental rites to this sin. I see no way around this. Sacramental rites to a sin is egregious.

---

There is a fundamental difference between the RCC and EO approaches to marriage. But suffice to say, the wedding service for a second marriage is a penitential one, and involves repentance of sins including repentance that their first marriage was broken. You don't certify the sin - you provide a path to repentance. Here's a good podcast on the topic (with a transcript). I miss Fr Thomas.

I wasn't saying annulment was bad, I was saying it is largely used as a legal fiction to find a way to say the marriage never happened, when manifestly it has. But this comes back to the differences.

Quote:

---

- You ignored the fact that East and West have never had the same liturgy

---

I didn't ignore it. I said there are differences in accidents and there are differences in essences, and there's a big gap between.

Quote:

---

If our liturgy truly consecrates the host, what has changed outside of how the looks?

---

Yeah dude, I don't agree with this. You're basically saying as long as the Eucharist is consecrated nothing else matters. But this is asking me to decide how far you can go before the Eucharist is no longer valid. Is it valid in a Baptist church? They say no there's no change, who am I to argue with them? The Lutherans? What about a Lutheran or Episcopal service offered by an openly homosexual female priest wearing rainbow robes? If that is valid - we're all good here? No objections from you? That's not how it works.

Quote:

---

- If He is present, then liturgical reforms, good or bad, are not worthy of schism. Thankfully historical record shows this to be true.

---

At the risk of repeating myself, a break in communion is not schism. Liturgical reforms for bad are absolutely a reason for a break in communion, until such time a mutual understanding can be reached. That is not schism! It does not create two churches!

Quote:

---

- Ramble all you want about how the liturgy determines all else, but if you are waiving away the fact that your current bishops may or may not actively sanction sin, the liturgy must not have saved the EO in any special way

---

Being frank this is a dumb argument. One, because the only defense is for you to say that no Roman bishop has ever sanctioned sin. And Two, because I never said the liturgy saved the EO.

Quote:

---

I'm tired of what appears to be (forgive me if I'm wrong) an incredibly condescending approach to Catholicism and the west in general, when the west makes up roughly 2 billion of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world today. Keep on saying that the teachings on divorce and remarriage, as well as contraception, are pastoral issues. Until you're willing to consider anything contrary, all attempts are futile.

---

I suppose you may not understand what I mean when I say pastoral issues. But again, this is a real difference in how the RCC and the EO operate. Maybe the best example is this. The purpose of the church is not to prevent sin, but to heal it. Not to condemn but to save. A priest cannot bless what is inherently sinful - no matter what the Pope says about homosexual unions! - but he can and must work to save, which always involves condescension to our weaknesses. It does not mean calling a bad thing good.

I also think you seem to read me arguing in favor of contraception. I am not. I am saying that there has been no formal teaching that we could say is a change one way or another, and I personally believe that those against birth control will be vindicated. I also think that the current state of license for NFP even as described by you goes against the teaching of the RCC. Article here discussing. Most Americans have no serious reason to avoid children. I am actually to the "right" of you on this issue.

Quote:

---

We are the Catholic church with number of different rites, united under the See of Rome. If you want to call us Romans, it is either ignorance or to inflame. It's hard to see this as charitable unless you see geography as a legitimate line of demarcation of ultimate authority.

---

Yeah, united under the See of Rome is precisely what I think is wrong here. That isn't how it once was, and it is not how it should be. I don't see geography per se - that is not what "nation" means under the apostolic canons - but it is a historical fact and undeniable that the early church was structured along the lines of Roman Imperial provinces. In my opinion (and this is only opinion) the Church should be structured along the lines of nations of people which is much more blurred these days. But the canons are clear that there should be no overlapping jurisdictions, so we should have geographic lines.

"Ultimate authority" is the problem. The "ultimate authority" is Christ. There is no theological "rank" above bishop - only administrative and seniority, by obedience. The idea of a single bishop with universal jurisdiction is very bad.

Quote:

---

- Your last paragraph reads to me incoherently, so I assume I misunderstand. Having unity by being autocephalous? Becoming one by having multiple heads? So the best way to have a unified marriage is to have two heads of the family? The best way to run a company is to have two (or more) heads?

---

Autocephalous means self-ruled. The Russian Church, the Greek Church, the Antiochian Church - all self-ruled. The Church only has one head - that is Christ. Not the bishop of Rome. One head of the family - Christ. Not the Bishop of Rome.

Multiplicity in leadership and administration is not anti-unity. Rome had two consuls and a senate. Sparta had two kings and the ephors and gerousia. Athens had multiple archons. Israel first had no king - and two leaders, prophet and high priest, plus the elders of the tribes. Then no single prophet. And later had a king and priest separate, still with the tribal elders. And NONE of these have the power the bishop of Rome has arrogated to himself. His power and jurisdiction is far greater than a husband in family, or a CEO of a company! The corresponding structure is that of an absolute monarch, which is exceedingly rare in history because it is so unstable, corruptible. Most often this is deemed "tyranny" in history.

We don't become one because we elect a single leader. This is the glaringly bad assumption in this argument, as if without a single human leader we cannot be one, and as if with one we are guaranteed. No. We are one because of, in, and through Christ. HE is our perfect, singular and absolute monarch - priest and king - and no one else.

Quote:

---

Why would having an "American Church" be a path to unity of the church globally?

---

This is a great question. The simple reason is that until we do so, we will continued to be fractured and divided. With no American church - and I mean by this a church comprised of American people, united under a senior American bishop, representing the unique cultural inheritance of the American people - we have overlapping jurisdictions from various churches - both Orthodox and otherwise. This is not canonical, and should not be this way. However, the New World and immigration has created a unique challenge here. The ultimate, canonically correct solution is for no overlapping episcopal jurisdictions, lead by one senior bishop. This church would be in communion with all the others, both as a whole (all the bishops under the patriarch) and individual (each church with his bishop). This is the historical model for the church.

An overlapping jurisdiction between Orthodox and Roman churches is no different. That is still the very picture of schism.

Quote:

---

*Last one: I asked before, when you stated that the bishops aren't the church and the church rejected it… you talk of being subject to the bishop. If the bishops unanimously teach something that the faithful overwhelmingly reject, what happens? It sounds to me that the bishops may serve by the permission of the faithful and not by ordained right.

---

This is no different than me asking you "If the Bishop of Rome teaches something the faithful overwhelmingly reject, what happens?" What you aggregate into the single office, we simply do not.

I agree that the EO does not have the same scholastic tradition that the west does, which is what frustrates this conversation. It's incredibly difficult to find good sources, and I am spending more time than I should to try and prove this point. The fact of the matter is, the EO has changed. This 1930 conference was attended by Orthodox bishops, as was the conference in 1920 that fully condemned contraception. This is written by an Anglican, but again shows how the view on contraception was changed.

https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=36-01-024-f&readcode=&readtherest=true

Now we can say that this isn't official teaching, or that the Orthodox church didn't comment, etc. But the delegates condemn the findings of the 1958 Lambeth conference in 1961, after not attending Lambeth post-1930. It is clear that artificial contraception is set aside from abstinence. But now contraception is seen as pastoral. This is an undeniable fact. Moral modernity snuck into your faith and it seems not to be noticed because the liturgy was unaffected.

https://time.com/archive/6806903/religion-concerning-birth-control/

When the report comes up for approval by the council's general assembly in 1961, the Eastern Orthodox churches will almost certainly oppose its adoption. The Orthodox Church made sure its own minority dissent was appended to the study-group report, asserted that "parents do not have the right to prevent the creative process of matrimonial intercourse; God entrusted to them this responsibility for childbearing, with full confidence that His Providence would take care of material and other needs."

I know the next step is to take "prevent the creative process of matrimonial intercourse" to mean the NFP somehow falls under this umbrella, despite the fact that this is direct response to artificial contraception. Maybe you will also say that you are comfortable with the fact that the church may have taught error (contraception is always immoral was incorrect teaching, for example) in the past, but I still think this brings up the same issue you and I would use with protestants: if the church can err in matter of what a sin is or isn't, what else can they mess up on? If morality itself can change, we're all on shaky ground.

I asked earlier how you think papal infallibility works, but I think it must have gotten lost in the fray. You write as if popes are in the habit of defining new teachings on a whim. The popes have always used advisors, councils, etc to work through doctrine. This is why the bad popes didn't do any teaching. They were so focused on the temporal power they had that they never bothered with the eternal. It also has never worked like Peter Kenrick argues for. Infallibility of the church is only found when the Holy Father is manifestly in union with the body of bishops? Nicea would be negated by this, since 5 bishops dissented, and other bishops relented as to not face excommunication. This doesn't work.

I'm not afraid of a pope teaching error on matters of faith and morality without full consent of bishops because the Holy Spirit is protecting the *office* of the pope. This was seen beautifully in Humanae Vitae. He had plenty of internal pressure to change including clergy and even a prominent Cardinal. Bishops at Vatican 2 leaked documents to make it seem like the Church was changing teaching in order to use public opinion to sway the result. Didn't work. We did not change. Unfortunately, as shown above ( and with Kallistos Ware), the EO did. Infallibility is a defense mechanism of the Church, not an offensive weapon.

However, it does follow from Kenrich's argument that every bishop could/should function as a pope, so you would be consistent in that. The problem is that in this model a bishop can make an authoritative teaching, while a different authoritative bishop comes to an opposite conclusion. Yet you can't "bishop hop". If you are one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, yet teach different things and members are expected to stay under their specific bishop even if they dissent, how are you "one". People are expected to stay under their bishop and be subjected to different moral laws than their so called fellow churchmen. If the church authorities are so separated that you can't move freely between them, how is it "one"?

Now, back to birth control vs NFP: NFP is not contraception, as the article you linked states. It is abstinence, as many popes have taught and this article declares. I have a number of explanations and analogies, but if you (as you seem to say) have written off the philosophy of natural law altogether, I'll save us both time. I'll simply restate the contraception and abstinence being the same thing was contrary to the opinion of the Orthodox church, my Dude. To say otherwise is, just, like, your opinion, man.

However, if you are open to a conversation on natural law philosophy, I'm open to it. For now, I'll just say this: no one can possibly have sex in such a way that avoids conception. That's the whole point. Sex leads to conception. Don't want conception, don't have sex. You say that abstinence is "not having sex"…. You mean like the "not having sex" that NFP requires? If NFP and contraceptives are the same thing, why do so many Catholics (as you point out) use contraceptives? It's the same thing right? Or is it because one method requires the "not having of sex" while the other does not? So no, you can't have "unprotected" (an evil term in my opinion), non-onanistic P in V sex in a way that avoids conception. You refrain from sex, or you thwart the act. There are only two ways and they are not the same. To say that a couple that prayerfully avoids the unitive good out of acknowledgement that the timing seems bad for the procreative is the same as the couple who sterilizes the act with zero sacrifice at all does a terrible disservice to those who have done the sacrificing in the face of an evil culture and false teachers.

What you are saying is akin to the idea that you can eat to starve yourself. Eating is the opposite of starving. If someone calorie restricts to the point of starvation, it's not the eating that starves them but the lack of enough eating. The only way to eat enough to not starve and still starve is to thwart the natural act of eating (bulimia). Or there is proper calorie restriction which includes both eating and not eating, but never "eating to starve. Eating to starve is nonsensical, as is having sex in a way to avoid conception. If you keep eating like natural, you will not starve. If you continue to have sex like natural you will conceive (provided both parties are healthy). The only way to starve or not conceive is to refrain from the natural action or to *******ize it.

I'll be happy to go into the ways a couple can abuse NFP by not having grave reason if you'd like, but you seem to get it. You never came across as pro-contraception, but the issue above does matter if error in morality is being taught.

Can you provide me with any links to the source of this Chrysostom sermon? Just like the last quote, all my google searches provide me with are books to buy. I can find all sorts of homilies from him online but none containing these quotes. I'll admit I only spent 5-10 minutes this time. I'd also like to point out again that this does not point towards unity, but avoiding sin. It also does not separate out the procreative act.

Again, judging a teaching based on how well it is adhered to does not make for good teaching. The EO and Catholics have low birthrates. You can only use statistics to judge how well we teach it (which is admittedly poor for us). If we want to use statistics to determine who teaches truth…. I guess we both better become Mormons.

Now to divorce: Both the gospels and epistles specifically defines choosing another spouse as adultery. The fathers unanimously taught this. How can you say one repents of their sin by engaging in sin? This makes no sense to me. So the man or woman acknowledges they did wrong, yes? Then go back to your ex and try to make it right. If they say no, then you stay single. If they are dead, you are free to marry. The only case where a separation is not condemned is when talking about unequally yoked persons. This is the grounds of annulment. But to say that we acknowledge our sin and repent of it by committing adultery should be serious cause of concern. This is calling an objectively "bad thing good".

I'll also say I find your characterization of annulment to be insulting. If you'd like to travel to a small town in central Texas, I have an incredible old man with a story about his denied annulment that will lead you to take this back. Unless you have great personal examples of these being handed out like candy, I'd ask you to drop this line of reasoning. My mom left the church over this teaching, so it's rather personal. The same mother who, despite being a double digit in her family's birth order, expressed concerns that my wife and I would be willing to "keep going". The irony was palpable. I get asked if "we're done yet" by Catholics just as much as others, so it's not a shock that not all view annulment the same way. But the teaching is sound and those that stick with the Church during this process are to be commended. We have a couple in our parish that has come back together after 15 years apart. The both knew remarriage was a problem, so they didn't do it. The barrier to healing was only time, not other marriages.

This is my issue with condescending to our weaknesses. This could easily be labeled as conforming to what the membership wants. It is not pastoral to say that there is healing through additional sin. This is why I love the story you posted. Having a family member in AA has been incredible to watch. It's not the acquiescence of sin, but the call to fight it as best as we can on this earth, knowing one may fail again. Admitting that one is powerless and needs God in their life to help them fight the good fight is a thing of humble beauty. Another story that gives hope to the hopeless and gives strength to those who want to stick to the faith but struggle https://aleteia.org/2017/07/06/he-was-an-opium-addict-who-couldnt-receive-the-sacraments-but-hes-a-martyr-and-a-saint. But all of this leads me to wonder how someone who fully acknowledges their past sin can rectify it by choosing another sin. Unless these are sexless marriages, which I am assuming they aren't and may be wrong.

Now to church authority/structure: I will state clearly that Christ is head of the Church, not the pope. Christ also spoke to one apostle differently than the other. Christ also prayed for unity. It's not a crazy stretch to put these all together. Ultimate Authority (capitalizing for emphasis) belongs to Christ. And Christ in His Ultimate Authority left an ultimate authority (lower case to show its lower place) in Peter. Peter messed up. Paul was inspired/wise enough to leave us an example of how he used Peter's own teachings to reprove Peter. He didn't usurp Peter. He did not claim to teach Peter. He did not leave Peter. I know we can't arrive at papal authority through the bible alone, but neither can we arrive at the Orthodox definition of papal primacy this way.

So we move on to history. A history full of appeals to the See of Rome. A history that shows 100% of robber councils excluding Roman delegates (to my knowledge). The teaching were nullified with no schism. But the time where churches disagree with the See of Rome: schism. Teachings stayed despite the objections. A history that shows Rome reinstating eastern clerics that were displaced without cause. A history that shows Clement reinstating clergy in Greece, despite his place in Rome.

Christ is Lord of the world. Our Lord left Peter in charge of His church. His Church is now over the whole world. Uniting the whole world to the See of Rome is an act of rejecting "self-rule" on purpose. Not because we can't self-rule, as the reformers showed. But because self-rule divides. You can say one head of one family, but to say that self-rule is somehow a part of being a family is antithetical to being a family. The only rule that one can make on their own is whether or not to be a part of the family.

If Christ is the husband (which He is) and the church is the wife (which She is) then why would He want a multi-headed bride? It's like marrying a wife with schizophrenia that has to check with all her personalities before submitting. This sounds off. He explicitly states He wants us to stay united, and as I've shown others, the "divisive" teaching are actually teachings to settle a divide. To stay silent would be to allow chaos. If we wanted to be united through a sort of "live and let live", Nicea was never really necessary.

Because of this, if the "Bishop of Rome" teaches something that all of the faithful deny, then there are no faithful. Obviously this is a binary, and the reality is that any teaching going to have X% accept and Y% deny. But we can state plainly that where there is an outright rejection of definitive teaching, there is a declaration against the faith. The Church doesn't change its teaching because the people don't like it. The orthodox church apparently has. Neither does she destroy all local customs and flair. We all have our own bishops conferences that attend the needs of the church in their respective countries. For example, due to poor faith regarding the Eucharist right now, the American bishops held a 3 year long Eucharistic revival. No other country did that. The same eucharist that is valid because it is consecrated by apostolic successors, which no other denomination has outside of Catholic and EO (which is why your liturgical argument doesn't work). You seem to take some sort of maximalist view where the pope has his hands on literally every decision made. We can still say we're American Catholics under the the president of the USCCB. He just reports to one higher. And that one reports to Christ.

You and I both agreed that faith is in the doing, not just the believing. In these two ways (and possibly more) your faith is teaching you the wrong things to do. I'm sure a merciful God will judge all according to that mercy (what we would call invincible ignorance) but the leaders that teach it or at least initiated that teaching were false shepherds, in my opinion. Condescension is stooping down to the lower in effort to lift them up. What I see here is only the stooping down and staying there. The opposite of the alcoholic you shared. So I desire unity behind right teaching. Keep your liturgy. Plenty of church's that joined ranks did that. But let's get our teachings on the same page.

Last thing: I am joining up with some men from church on a program that limits social media usage to Sundays only, so please forgive any delayed responses going forward.

Quote:

---

The fact of the matter is, the EO has changed.

---

You seem unwilling to understand that just as the RCC has "official teaching" so do the Orthodox. The church teaching has not changed.

Quote:

---

But now contraception is seen as pastoral. This is an undeniable fact.

---

It is not. Again, you seem unwilling to engage with what I am actually saying. You ignore that even in a pastoral approach a priest cannot bless what is sinful.

Quote:

---

Infallibility of the church is only found when the Holy Father is manifestly in union with the body of bishops? Nicea would be negated by this, since 5 bishops dissented, and other bishops relented as to not face excommunication

---

Manifestly in union doesn't mean utter unanimity.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, as shown above ( and with Kallistos Ware), the EO did.

---

Again. Kallistos Ware is not the Church. You say "a prominent cardinal" pressured change but that didn't make a change. Even if Kallistos Ware taught his faithful that it was acceptable to use hormonal birth control - and I do not think this is true! - that would be no different.

Quote:

---

how are you "one"

---

In Christ.

Quote:

---

subjected to different moral laws

---

You seem to be under the impression that the church causes morality to exist. It does not. It recognizes what is already there. A bishop teaching an error does not subject someone to different moral law. It subjects the bishop to judgment.

Quote:

---

NFP is not contraception

---

what is the purpose of NFP? manifestly to engage in sex in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of conception.

Quote:

---

To say that a couple that prayerfully avoids the unitive good out of acknowledgement that the timing seems bad for the procreative

---

this is such a cop out, i'm sorry. this is laughable. "timing seems bad bro" - today. let's wait a couple of days for the "timing" to be better to have sex. this timing of course has nothing to do with not wanting a kid right now.

Quote:

---

If someone calorie restricts to the point of starvation, it's not the eating that starves them but the lack of enough eating

---

the closer analogy would be that if you ate only on some days you get fat, but on other days you don't. you don't want to get fat, so you eat all you want on the latter, and don't eat at all on the former, and then claim what you're doing is fasting.

Quote:

---

Can you provide me with any links to the source of this Chrysostom sermon?

---

i only have the full text in Greek, sorry. link.

Quote:

---

If we want to use statistics to determine who teaches truth

---

i never made this claim.

Quote:

---

Now to divorce...The only case where a separation is not condemned is when talking about unequally yoked persons.

---

"til death do us part" is not part of the Orthodox ceremony. There are no vows in an Orthodox marriage. The understanding is fundamentally different. And Orthodox ecclesiastical divorces are not given for any reasons, but examples like abuse or adultery - not incompatibility or whatever.

it's ok you don't agree. another point of a difference of tradition between our faiths. here is a post with plenty of discussion about how the Orthodox view upholds the tradition of the fathers.

Quote:

---

characterization of annulment to be insulting...by choosing another sin

---

sorry. i find the idea that a marriage was thought to be valid can be found to be invalid post facto, and therefore you can remarry, to be a kind of legal fiction. at any rate, the reasons for annulment in the RCC and divorce in the Orthodox church are similar. In fact based on this the standards for annulment seem to be lighter. The difference is that the Orthodox have no conceptual space for a marriage not being "legally binding" even though the marriage actually happened. In the end, the decision by a bishop to allow a person to be remarried essentially functions the same way as an annulment does. Even the article I noted says "there are cases where a person is justified in acting contrary to the law" and again "A hateful, abusive husband is probably a psychologically damaged human being, whether we can prove his personality disorder or not" and again "Many of them receive [Communion] anyway, believing that their second marriage is not a sin but a blessing.
This civil marriage violates the strict letter of the law, but freedom of conscience comes into play here." Your church would say that the psychologically damaged human cannot validly marry. My church says they were married, but the divorce happened. In either case the question is - ok, how do we deal with it? At the same time your church allows a tribunal to say - it is not sin for this person to remarry because the original marriage was invalid. My church allows a bishop to say - it is not sin for this person to remarry because their original marriage was ended for reasons that make it permissible for this person to remarry. Binding and loosing is a real thing.

For example, my mother divorced her first husband who was an adulterer and abusive toward her, before remarrying my father. Had she been catholic there is no certainty she would have been granted an annulment. Her marriage to my father was a blessing, and she says she knows she will have to make a defense for it at the judgment seat. So be it. He will judge. But it would be better for her (she is not Orthodox) to have that judgment been done by a bishop, who absolutely has that right.

Quote:

---

So we move on to history

---

sorry but the argument from history is pretty clear that Rome asserted increasing rights, which were consistently and definitively rejected by the rest of the church. Examples here. Patristic quotes here.

Quote:

---

Our Lord left Peter in charge of His church

---

The scriptures do not say this. Our Lord left the Apostles.

Quote:

---

self-rule divides

---

The record of history shows the opposite, unfortunately. The Orthodox remain in unity. The western church has fractured into countless schisms.

Quote:

---

would He want a multi-headed bride

---

self rule doesn't mean multi-headed or in disunity any more than cardinals make the Roman church multi-headed.

Quote:

---

if the "Bishop of Rome" teaches something that all of the faithful deny, then there are no faithful

---

I agree with your assessment of your church. This makes the bishop of Rome the Church, because he can be right in his office, alone. However the church is not the bishop, any bishop, but the bishop united with the faithful.

Quote:

---

The Church doesn't change its teaching because the people don't like it. The orthodox church apparently has.

---

lol

Quote:

---

your liturgical argument doesn't work

---

the liturgical argument i never made but now you're pummeling as a strawman?

Quote:

---

You seem to take some sort of maximalist view where the pope has his hands on literally every decision made

---

he may not, but he can, because he has universal jurisdiction. that matters.

Quote:

---

your faith is teaching you the wrong things to do

---

no, it isn't, because you still have offered no evidence of teaching that is in any way different than one of your bishops being in error. that doesn't meant the RCC changed teaching. the same applies.

I stated that I was not 100% sure on how orthodox official teaching works. I said I am open to searching for evidence you would find compelling. I have found several sources. All of it leads in the singular direction of a change in teaching on birth control. What I have not done is shown an unwillingness to understand.
I have shown several sources that show that artificial contraception was seen as impermissible. Now it is permissible. Something changed. If something like the "Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate" isn't official, that's fine. (As far as I have seen, you have not stated your affiliation, which leaves interpreting your particular bishop/patriarch's teaching's difficult) But it does go against what you are claiming the Orthodox church teaches. For reference, here is what said body has published on contraceptives:

The Church anticipates, of course, that most marriages will be open to conception; but it also understands that there are situations in which spiritual, physical, psychological, or financial impediments arise that make it wiseat least, for a timeto delay or forego the bearing of children. The Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of safe and non-abortifacient contraceptives within the context of married life, not as an ideal or as a permanent arrangement, but as a provisional concession to necessity.
https://www.goarch.org/social-ethos?fbclid=IwAR2RSPrgYRhP***T9p2iIQkd9wqtOYJ74Gtjnpmyq9xYdxshwqr6U1FJFiY

Or we can look at a couple of orthodox sites (carpatho-russian and Greek American) to see this:

The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues

Both seem to fly in the face of what you said in these following quotes:

Quote:

---

The church's stance hasn't changed on contraceptives. Not sure why you keep beating that drum.
medical use of hormonal birth controls means there's an actual medical issue going on, which is why its something to be dealt with by pastoral and marital economy. "i don't want to have kids right now" is not an actual medical issue.

Kids are a natural outcome of sex. If you're using hormonal birth control to have sex and not have kids, there's a problem

The teaching hasn't changed. Some people don't agree with it, or don't like it. The tradition on this matter in the RCC and EO is the same. I would suggest that the number of people who do not accept it both among the laity and the clergy(!) is likely similar in both.

The formality of answering a question that was only possible to conceive of in the past 50 years - I'm talking about hormonal birth control - is an unreasonable standard in the history of the church.
How can the church be calling something a sin which did not exist? Hormonal birth control wasn't invented until the 1950s. You're assuming they are functionally equivalent to all methods of contraception. But the church has never made the claim that all methods of contraception are identical, because NFP *is* contraception and is not inherently sinful

Both for chastity and procreation. You can't do one without the other, it can't be purely physical gratification, it can't be abusive or selfish, etc.

---

It's not just medical use of hormonal birth control for a medical issue. It's all non-abortifacient uses of birth control for the specific reason of "not having kids right now". It's blatantly different than what you said in the prior quotes. And in fact, hormonal birth control probably should be at the top of things to avoid as is can potentially act as an abortifacient.

Your views on this are not in alignment with the top tier of your church. Again, if this isn't "official", then fine. But the fact is artificial contraceptives (and not limited to the pill) are being taught as licit. I have also shown where prior orthodox statements are contrary to this view. I fail to see how there is not a change in moral teaching here, and sin is being blessed. I want to reiterate that I'm not unwilling to engage. I simply don't see how this can be reconciled without either saying the historical church had it wrong or the current one does. Or perhaps your highest See just has it wrong. I'm genuinely open to your explanation of how this doesn't contradict, from your perspective. I don't want to simply try to refute one another, but truly understand your perspective.

I also reject the idea that the Church defines moral law. I agree with what you stated: the Church RECOGNIZES what was already there. This is my primary issue with the above issue. What was recognized regarding birth control has been changed by all but one denomination. Whether due to new medicines or pastoral condescension, changing of this magnitude is a big red flag to me. This is why saying that NFP is contraception is so mind boggling to me. You chose not to answer this, so I'll ask it again: if NFP is contraception, why is the rate of artificial birth-control so high among polled Catholics if they could just use NFP? They're the same thing, right? Or maybe just pulling out is a good idea. Committing Onanism during a fertile period is worse than abstaining entirely, in your opinion. Why? What is the one thing that makes these methods different if not abstaining from the act versus doing the act anyway and stopping the procreative nature?

I hope you can at least see there are some applications of the natural law that are helpful, because if not, it leads to thoughts like this:

Me: If someone calorie restricts to the point of starvation, it's not the eating that starves them but the lack of enough eating

Your response:

Quote:

---

the closer analogy would be that if you ate only on some days you get fat, but on other days you don't. you don't want to get fat, so you eat all you want on the latter, and don't eat at all on the former, and then claim what you're doing is fasting.

---

There is no better example of rejection of the natural law than this. This is basically saying "if pigs could fly…" Do you know any person, or any mammal, or any animal of any kind who responds to eating this way? This analogy is not even a reach. It's science fiction where we have to consider some possible way He could have created us versus observing what He did create. I'm explaining the way the body actually works, not making something up. The body is fertile sometimes and infertile other times. Contraceptives are designed to make one infertile when they naturally would not be. It is intentionally shutting down a healthy human function, not working with a healthy human function. Inhibiting that function which God gave us for physical gratification. And that healthy function is artificially disrupted because people are unwilling to abstain from sex for whatever period of time necessary.

This is why NFP can never be seen as a contraceptive*. It's akin to saying naturally optimizing sleep patterns, diet, and exercise are equal to taking sleeping pills, semi-glutides and anabolic steroids. Laugh off the difference all you want, but its readily apparent for anyone willing to consider the "means" rather than just the "end".

* The church does teach NFP can be abused, but it can never be labeled a contraceptive because it is logically incoherent. What can lead couple to sin is a "contraceptive mindset" where they are so against conception that they put their trust in the science to avoid pregnancy rather than putting their trust in the Lord to provide. That is a separate sin which has also been consistently condemned

If you did not intend to use statistics to determine who teaches truth, I must have been confused by a post like this:

Quote:

---

You can be shocked by this, but 25% of abortions in the US in the past were from self-identifying Catholics - double that of Evangelicals. Catholics are reported to use contraception more than anyone else! So we see sanction also exists in the form of pastoral tolerance, which we can only divide from teaching through sophistry. What does it matter what the church "officially" teaches if the people and the clergy ignore it en masse? The teaching is the life of the church.

- Catholics use contraception. Yes. Ideally they repent in the confessional and stop. Most likely don't understand the teaching and are taught by the culture instead.
If it was 50/50 I'd agree. Every poll I can see indicates it is essentially all. This is a teaching issue, or tacit acceptance

---

If I have misread, I am sorry. This seems to be one big "since your parishioners are failing to live up to the teaching, the teaching isn't actually the teaching." The Church does not determine moral law. It recognizes it, refuses to condescend to it, no matter how much the faithful would prefer it, or to avoid schism/break in communion. You don't see any "sanctioning" of the bad practice, nor pastoral tolerance. Any pastor who counsels people that this is ok has broken from the church and needs to repent, because the bible has plenty to say about false teachers and none of it is good. You simply see people not listening or not knowing the teaching due to bad catechesis.

To annulment, again, it is not just some sort of catholic divorce. I do hope you can read up on the Council of Trullo and see how a marriage being declared "null" is differentiated. Marriage is indissoluble but it talks about unlawful marriages that must be dissolved and declared "null". In other words: it's not a marriage. This is the 600s. You keep calling it a fiction when your own heritage did not see it that way. Why do Orthodox not have conceptual space when a council held in Constantinople in 692 held space for it? These eastern bishops delineate between dismissing a spouse versus dissolving a union and even calling certain unions "null". If y'all had room for it and now you don't, is this not the definition of a change? For other examples of how there is such room in Orthodoxy, Ctrl+F this document from an Orthodox clergyman https://analele-stiintifice-teologie-ortodoxa-iasi.ro/reviste/2021/nr2/Ioan%20COZMA%20-%20Grounds%20for%20Divorce%20in%20the%20Orthodox%20Church%20-%20A%20Canonical%20Approach.pdf

So it does appear there is room for invalid marriages to be annulled. Divorce and annulment do not function the same way. If a catholic believes they were truly married before, they are obliged to stay single. If they want to remarry, they need to review that former marriage WITH their former spouse to determine if it is a legitimate marriage or not. Entirely different process.

It's unconscionable (to me) to say "yes, I am a married person and I want to marry another person" with the blessing of a priest. You are either married or you aren't. If you were married, go fix it. Figure out how, no matter how hard, because we are called to pick up our cross. If it's an unfixable situation, live your life in prayer. Also hard. Pick up your cross. Don't commit adultery. Committing grave sin is not a fix for a broken marriage. I'm not condemning anyone who has fallen into sin, as I certainly have fallen into my own sins. Christ's mercy can and will extend to all who are repentant. But for THE church to allow/condone sin in His name due to pastoral difficulties is hard for me to reconcile.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with my conclusion on divorce and remarriage and to what degree it may be sanctioning sin, I do want to reiterate that treating annulment as just another form of divorce is a modern misinterpretation.

Saving unity for last, I do want to state you appear to make liturgical arguments against Catholicism multiple times:

Quote:

---

I think people want unity. They don't want it at the expense of their traditions. The problem is the western churches have changed a lot. Vatican I and II took that and put into hyperdrive. Most orthodox look at the stuff going on in RCC services right now and say - no, not with that.

You cannot have the correct teaching of the faith and simultaneously not have the correct praxis. Faith, praxis, teaching, tradition, worship, they're all of a piece.

In response to Plenty of eastern Catholic Churches keep their liturgies. I don't know why that would be a serious issue

Then I don't think you have thought about it from the other perspective very hard. It'd not about our liturgy… it's about what's going on in yours.

Ok, and speaking for myself and not all orthodox people, I don't really care how you justify making those changes and saying they're reversible or whatever. Wholesale changes to your rites look bonkers from the outside. Why would we want to mess with that?

So I fundamentally disagree. You can go into any parish you like and know whether they are practicing the same faith. There are obviously non-material differences in how this can look - accidents, to use Aristotle. But there are also changes which can be essential change, regardless of whatever formal teaching is used to justify them or hovers over or around them, or is formally maintained untethered by what actually happens, the actual life of the church.

I didn't ignore it. I said there are differences in accidents and there are differences in essences, and there's a big gap between

---

This reads as our liturgical differences giving sound argument against a possible unity. Then you say you aren't making that argument. Clearly I'm confused by they way you've worded it. I'm open to reading any clarification you'd offer.

Now to why this will never allow for unity:

You say the west has fractured while the east has remained united. The Catholic Church had one schism since 1054. We can up that to two if we want to count the Anglicans waiting a few years to split off, but that's it. The fact that protestants splintered 1000 more times didn't have anything to do with us. The east has had multiple schisms, one of which is going on right now and meets your definition of schism: establishing competing churches in another's jurisdiction. And it happens to be with the group that is roughly half of all orthodox members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Moscow%E2%80%93Constantinople_schism#:~:text=The%202018%20Moscow%E2%80%93Constantinople%20schism,full%20communion%20with%20the%20latter.

You say that you have concerns about what the pope could do while seemingly ignoring what Constantinople has done: namely, granting autonomy to territories claimed and contested by a local, historical see. And what's more, calling that See the "first with no equals" specifically to avoid falling into protestant-esque division. You have your own attempt at papal supremacy happening right now. And it seems that your dream of an American Orthodox church is most likely with unilateral say from Constantinople. Could the current EPC not grant your desired autocephaly (the same autocephaly acknowledged by the ROC) and make it happen as he did in Ukraine? So question: if said dream requires the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, how is that not him acting as "pope"? The same EPC that defines the licit use of contraceptives very differently than you have here.

Again, I admit I don't know all the ends and outs of orthodoxy, so please do not state that I refuse to learn. I'm stating what I see, and what I see is a church that seems to make territories and people a property of sorts. You say that orthodoxy is in "union" but you can't flow freely from one to the other because they are different enough that something separates you. A Catholic can align themselves under an eastern rite today and never cease being Catholic. The opposite is also true. But for Greek to go Russian, Russian to go Ukrainian, Ukrainian to go Bulgarian is taboo. This breaks my Western brain, I admit. It feels anything but "universal".

The office of pope does not cause unity. It does not create unity. It is there to protect unity. Much like Peter tells us in Acts 1 that Judas's office must be replaced, Peter's office had to be replaced. It is an office. An office that doesn't lord over the others, but protects and unifies the others wherever disagreement may arise. Regardless of how "good" or "bad" the current pope was/is/will be, the office is there for us to rally around, pray for and seek juridical help when disagreements arise. Thankfully Our Lord did not pick one apostle, but twelve, and as such, pope's have not and do not rely on their own prayer life for answers, but the lives of many cardinals and bishops to help advise him before pronouncing authoritative teaching.

Interesting to say this when there were disagreements (like Paul vs Peter or Barnabas) mere decades after Jesus's ascension. If there were no disagreements in doctrine, there would have been no need for councils in the first place.

Quote:

---

NFP is not contraception

---

I've had this baffling conversation with catholics before. Define contraception. Because the ordinary definition includes both techniques and artificial barriers.

And even if there were some words in the English language that made the distinction. It would be worth exploring if there was a moral difference.

It's like if there was a word for stabbing a man with a steel knife Vs an "organic" knife made of wood. The steel knife may be a slightly more effective weapon at penetrating light barriers but both are designed and used with the intent to stab and both are effective at their task the overwhelming majority of the time. So is there a moral difference? I can't see it.

The difference is that one (NFP) does NOT remove the will of God while the other (contraception, pulling out, abortion, etc.) seek to eliminate the will of God.

+++

"what is the purpose of NFP? manifestly to engage in sex in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of conception."

False. It is to acknowledge the will of God as the author of life and to respect it.

I'm sure you're familiar with the ends not justifying the means. The "ends" of NFP can look similar to or even be equal to artificial contraception, but that does not mean the "means" are equivalent. Let's take your knife example:

Metal knife: artificial contraception.
"Organic" knife: not NFP. This would be more like pulling out.
No knife at all: NFP

So if what we are "stabbing" is a potential pregnancy, the couple must being having sex during a fertile period. That has to happen for a baby to come into existence. Artificial contraception is "stabbing" the potential pregnancy arising from sex in a fertile time zone. Pulling out is "stabbing" the potential pregnancy arising from sex in a fertile zone. NFP is not having sex during a fertile zone, and therefore not even having a potential pregnancy to "stab". This is why no one has ever used abstinence to GET pregnant. It's impossible. NFP is the use of NOT having sex in a strategic way versus contraception being used to keep having sex anyway.

I get how from a purely secular world view that there is essentially no difference, but if we believe that we are created by God and true right and wrong exist, there is a world of difference. In one situation we have a couple sacrificing for time periods that others are unwilling to give up. The easiest way to prove that NFP is nowhere near the same thing as contraception is to question contracepting couples on why they don't use NFP. Or even better, if you are in a contracepting relationship currently, would you consider NFP instead of the pill, condoms, vasectomy, etc? The vast majority of people will answer "no". When you really consider what NFP is asking a couple to do, you'll see the stark difference these means have to achieve similar ends.

Further, to boil it down further... it's essentially fertility awareness. And it is often used to achieve pregnancy.

Sorry man, I missed this - but when you lead with "I stated that I was not 100% sure on how orthodox official teaching works" you should have probably just finished with that as well. Again - you know this - a document on a website is not "church teaching". And no, I'm not Greek Orthodox, so this is not the "top tier" of my church, and the EP is not my "highest See". I'm Antiochian, so the administrative leader of our church is Patriarch John. But there is not a theological "higher level" than the see of my bishop - because all bishops are heirs to the apostles. Again, each Orthodox bishop effectively functions like your pope.

Quote:

---

if NFP is contraception, why is the rate of artificial birth-control so high among polled Catholics if they could just use NFP? They're the same thing, right? Or maybe just pulling out is a good idea

---

Why practice NFP? Humanae Vitae tells us why: for people who "decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time." The unsaid part is that they decide not to have additional children, but do not decide to stop having sex. That *is* contraception: a means to have sex without having children. How you achieve that doesn't change what it is.

These kind of, forgive me, contrivances (legal fictions) are a real difference between east and west.

Quote:

---

It's unconscionable (to me) to say "yes, I am a married person and I want to marry another person" with the blessing of a priest.

---

But if your priest says hey even thought you were married, had sex (which is really what actualizes a marriage, no?) and lived as a married couple, because there was this legal problem we can annul it and say you weren't actually married, then it is somehow entirely different? I mean honestly, do you think God is stupid?

Quote:

---

This reads as our liturgical differences giving sound argument against a possible unity.

---

The objection isn't to differences as such, but to specific differences in particular.

Quote:

---

Again, I admit I don't know all the ends and outs of orthodoxy

---

yes

Quote:

---

You say that you have concerns about what the pope could do while seemingly ignoring what Constantinople has done: namely, granting autonomy to territories claimed and contested by a local, historical see. And what's more, calling that See the "first with no equals" specifically to avoid falling into protestant-esque division. You have your own attempt at papal supremacy happening right now. And it seems that your dream of an American Orthodox church is most likely with unilateral say from Constantinople. Could the current EPC not grant your desired autocephaly (the same autocephaly acknowledged by the ROC) and make it happen as he did in Ukraine? So question: if said dream requires the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, how is that not him acting as "pope"? The same EPC that defines the licit use of contraceptives very differently than you have here.

---

yeah, you are just working on a bad framework here because you don't understand. that's ok.

Autocephaly doesn't come from the EP precisely because the EP isn't the pope. When a new church is formed, they are the "daughter" church of the church who formed them. Being autocephalous comes from that church. For example the Russian church in the US declared their daughter church in the US autocephalous (the Orthodox Church in America). The problem in the US is one of overlapping jurisdictions caused by real pastoral challenges met with short-term solutions, i.e., people coming to the new world in isolated communities with no Orthodox services and forming parishes to serve their communities with support from home, which lead to long term confusion. And frankly until the recent period of rapid growth it probably didn't "feel" like much of a problem.

So to form a unified American Orthodox Church would actually require the blessing of all of the patriarchates - Serbian, Greek, Romanian, Antiochian, etc. - to form one unified church. The overlapping jurisdictions is a big challenge that obviously needs to be fixed. But in the meantime there's also the reality that there is a reason churches don't start autocephalous, and there's a very real issue that the US is probably not yet ready for an autocephalous church. We have a lot of work to do.

Quote:

---

Again, I admit I don't know all the ends and outs of orthodoxy, so please do not state that I refuse to learn. I'm stating what I see, and what I see is a church that seems to make territories and people a property of sorts. You say that orthodoxy is in "union" but you can't flow freely from one to the other because they are different enough that something separates you. A Catholic can align themselves under an eastern rite today and never cease being Catholic. The opposite is also true. But for Greek to go Russian, Russian to go Ukrainian, Ukrainian to go Bulgarian is taboo. This breaks my Western brain, I admit. It feels anything but "universal".

---

You can't flow freely from one church to another because you are under obedience to a bishop. This is like saying "why can't I change parents with my cousins?" But that doesn't make you part of a different family. We're all in communion. I can go to another church, take communion, and I do when I visit. You seem to be working under the concept that unity comes from some administrative framework. It does not. Unity is found through the Eucharist.

Quote:

---

Peter's office had to be replaced. It is an office. An office that doesn't lord over the others, but protects and unifies the others wherever disagreement may arise.

---

Which is a historically untenable teaching and position.

The differences is that while NFP is manifestly a method to have sex without having children, their teaching documents define contraception narrowly as a method to render intercourse sterile, an act specifically intended to prevent procreation.

Since the timing itself doesn't do that, they say it isn't contraception. Their "contraceptive act" is not having sex in periods of fertility, which since it is the absence of intercourse, can't be contraception definitionally.

But if you zoom out to the larger picture, the timing itself is a method of contraception by the usual definition, which is simply preventing pregnancy, e.g., "the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse". It absolutely is a deliberate use of a technique to prevent pregnancy.

And nevermind the fact that NFP itself is only licensed in the RCC for "just reasons," "serious reasons," "serious motives," or "grave reasons". If we examine this with even a modicum of sincerity the average family should not be practicing NFP at all.

These threads depress me. Look at the Gospels. No Bible, no book larger than the Bible itself such as the CCC yet people drawn to the Savior Himself.

No fancy robes. No fancy buildings. No fancy productions. Just faith.

How does anything on this thread or others like it lead someone to Christ? Reads like mass confusion not "The Way, The Truth and The Life".

Seems like "religion" and "dogma" led us astray. What happened to the simple faith of a child?

Aggrad08 said:

---

Let's work backwards. Rather than telling me what NFP isn't doing. Tell me what it is doing. Why do NFP? What's the purpose?

---

Why NFP and not contraception for family planning? Assuming that is the question, as I've stated the key difference is recognizing that God is creator and author of life even when such life is unwanted by the mother and father.

Further, this recognition rightly (in RCC doctrine) preserves the inseparable dynamic of the conjugal act (marital sex) as being uniative and procreative. In this way, it remains a sacred act, blessed by God that fulfills his command to be, "fruitful and multiply" (Gn 1:8)

Contraception and related methods (to include) abortion have as its aim the rejection of God's gift of life to the mother and father.

As someone who has used both methods I can tell you that there is a fundamental difference between both. It really boils down to recognizing God in a relationship between a husband and wife. Instead of "anytime" we recognize each other's fertility and choose. When we give ourselves to each other- we give fully.

You cannot say that about contraception- no one gives themselves fully- they remove the procreative dynamic of the conjugal act whether through artificial means or deliberate methods.

They may have the same outcome, to plan one's family- but one does so as a partnership with God and the other apart from God.

HTH

Ye know not what thou sayest my friend.

I will have to look it up and post a link, however, it was Pope Paul VI who was at the center of this very question- should Catholics be allowed to use contraception?

His 1968 Encyclical, Humane Vitae, is the Godly inspired response that answers this very question and goes on to layout what a "contraceptive" mentality would lead to- more abortions. Prophetic in that regard it also lead to the very understanding of NFP.

However, NFP was not the first. There was at least one other method, the Calendar Method, may have had some other name, but basically boiled down to counting days between ovulation.

The RCC believed there "had to be a way" for couples to plan a family without committing a sin through the use of contraceptives and/or pulling out, prophylactics, etc. All of which were man's withholding of himself - the separation of the conjugal act.

NFP was this development and has at its core the understanding of God as the author of life and the sacredness of the conjugal act (unitive-procreative).

I heard this at one of the initial trainings- it's like providing for your family, but instead of stealing, you are earning an honest living.

One, it is not obvious to me that there "has to be a way" for people to a plan a family while still having sex. The simplest way is abstinence. If you're not going to be abstinent, pregnancies are going to happen unless you do something else.

This seems like an artificial framing of the question. If you really want to submit to God as author of life, why bother timing at all? Do we not trust His timing?

And you are ignoring the fact that NFP is not taught as a thing that everyone can do all the time, but only for just reasons.

Quote:

---

"If therefore there are 'iusta causae' for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile." (Humanae Vitae)

---

Or a bit longer:

Quote:

---

Today, besides, another grave problem has arisen, namely, if and how far the obligation of being ready for the service of maternity is reconcilable with the ever more general recourse to the periods of natural sterility the so-called "agenesic" periods in woman, which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept.
...
It is necessary first of all to consider two hypotheses. If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences. It is exactly in this that the application of the theory, of which We are speaking, differs essentially from the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself. If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.

Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.

However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.


The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner--in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.


Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

Perhaps you will now press the point, however, observing that in the exercise of your profession you find yourselves sometimes faced with delicate cases, in which, that is, there cannot be a demand that the risk of maternity be run, a risk which in certain cases must be absolutely avoided, and in which as well the observance of the agenesic periods either does not give sufficient security, or must be rejected for other reasons. Now, you ask, how can one still speak of an apostolate in the service of maternity?

If, in your sure and experienced judgment, the circumstances require an absolute "no," that is to say, the exclusion of motherhood, it would be a mistake and a wrong to impose or advise a "yes." Here it is a question of basic facts and therefore not a theological but a medical question; and thus it is in your competence. However, in such cases, the married couple does not desire a medical answer, of necessity a negative one, but seeks an approval of a "technique" of conjugal activity which will not give rise to maternity. And so you are again called to exercise your apostolate inasmuch as you leave no doubt whatsoever that even in these extreme cases every preventive practice and every direct attack upon the life and the development of the seed is, in conscience, forbidden and excluded, and that there is only one way open, namely, to abstain from every complete performance of the natural faculty. Your apostolate in this matter requires that you have a clear and certain judgment and a calm firmness.

It will be objected that such an abstention is impossible, that such a heroism is asking too much. You will hear this objection raised; you will read it everywhere. Even those who should be in a position to judge very differently, either by reason of their duties or qualifications, are ever ready to bring forward the following argument: "No one is obliged to do what is impossible, and it may be presumed that no reasonable legislator can will his law to oblige to the point of impossibility. But for husbands and wives long periods of abstention are impossible. Therefore they are not obliged to abstain; divine law cannot have this meaning."

In such a manner, from partially true premises, one arrives at a false conclusion. To convince oneself of this it suffices to invert the terms of the argument: "God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible." To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: "God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able".

Do not be disturbed, therefore, in the practice of your profession and apostolate, by this great talk of impossibility. Do not be disturbed in your internal judgment nor in your external conduct. Never lend yourselves to anything which is contrary to the law of God and to your Christian conscience! It would be a wrong towards men and women of our age to judge them incapable of continuous heroism. Nowadays, for many a reason,perhaps constrained by dire necessity or even at times oppressed by injusticeheroism is exercised to a degree and to an extent that in the past would have been thought impossible. Why, then, if circumstances truly demand it, should this heroism stop at the limits prescribed by the passions and the inclinations of nature? It is clear: he who does not want to master himself is not able to do so, and he who wishes to master himself relying only upon his own powers, without sincerely and perseveringly seeking divine help, will be miserably deceived." (Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, Pope Pius XII)

---

I'm glad you found the document. I have a hard copy, lol, and my iPhone at the moment and it is tricky to post links.

To your point. It's clear that the Pope recognizes that a couple must be open to the will of God. As you highlight , abstaining except for those times of infertility are not the aim of the conjugal act which is integral to Holy Matrimony.

It is a "way" however to keep God at the center of family planning. Recognizing that God is the author of life- when we had our 6-7-8th child and were actively using NFP, we did trust in God and believed he has a plan. My 8th kiddo, Carlos, is now 15 and I cannot imagine my life without him.

Bottom line, children are a gift from God. NFP recognizes this from the outset.

It does not, not essentially or necessarily. It is a tool, nothing more, and like any tool can be used for bad or for good. And it isn't even a Christian tool.

Intent is at the core of this "tool" as you put it.

The front end of Humane Vitae does a good job of defining this intent where mankind seeks to control all aspects of human development through his mastery of technology, medicine, etc. But what about life?

This is the lie of "birth control" because it is neither about "birth" nor "control". Instead it serves man to loose control and prevent births.

They are not the same.

So how does the EP granting Ukrainian autocephaly against the wishes of it's mother church not show that Constantinople is the "top tier"? The See has published that it's the "first without equals" and that is necessary to not fall into the error of Protestantism. You are in communion with him, so I'd ask if you see these as grievous errors?

If you want to say he has primacy above others in ecclesial matters but not theological, you'll run into issues there as well. As you said, you can't freely flow from bishop to bishop in EO. Hypothetical problem: if I have a bishop that says contraception is a grave sin (say Antiochian), but another bishop (say OCA) next door says it's not, one of them must be correct. If I believe the bishop next door is correct and he is willing to allow me the use of contraception (or remarriage or whatever other issue) and I'm not allowed to align under him, how is this unified? I'm bound to a bishop's authority to make me do something that another bishop would allow me to do? Am I my bishop's property?

Even analogizing this with switching parents shows that we're not really in union in this scenario. It's weird to even consider switching bishops as changing out dads. It reads as "my flock, your flock" rather than the one flock that is under the care of many bishops. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, not cousins in Christ. The free flow from one bishop to another (in our modern global world) should allow for seamless teaching because there is one church.

And I think this could be a potential issue in the Antiochian church. For example:

- The AOCANA says the following here, https://www.antiochian.org/regulararticle/366
The Church fathers condemned the use of contraception in all forms, although there was a difference in approach, as a rejection of God's command to be fruitful and multiply. The sexual union between husband and wife is to be approached with an openness to the blessing of children, even as it is also an aid to "quench the fiery passions of our nature.

But then we go to the Patriarchate of Antioch here, https://antiochpatriarchate.org/en/page/2460/#:~:text=Birth%20Control%3A%20In%20order%20to,and%20do%20not%20harm%20fertility.
Birth Control: In order to regulate family life, the Church accepts the use of preventative methods of birth control that are not abortifacient and do not harm fertility
So who do you go with? Your local bishop is saying the church fathers rejected it but your current patriarch says it's ok (based on individual circumstances). Can you see how this doesn't come across as a unified front to an outsider?

To annulment, I've shown where an eastern council has said a marriage can be declared null. Do you think they were saying God was stupid when they declared those canons? Let me try to show where you already accept a similar distinction between an ceremony and a sacrament:

- If a catholic converts to orthodoxy, most times they won't need to be rebaptized. Why? The baptism was seen as a valid sacrament
- If a Mormon converts, they will need to be rebaptized, despite being baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. Why? The intent and view of the trinity was all wrong, and as such, was not sacramental

We see a similar distinction drawn in the council of Trullo as well in canon 95. Some people need to be rebaptized while others do not. Is God stupid? No. There are true sacramental marriages and others that are merely ceremonial. Yes, they were legally married. They likely share kids together. They presented that way to the public. But was the sacrament truly there? And, again, this distinction was there in the eastern tradition as well. You're rejecting your own tradition, not just the western one. You can say it's being applied to liberally today or something to that effect, but you can't say nullity didn't exist without rejecting church history.

Again, NFP is abstinence. Definition of abstinence: practice of not doing or having something that is wanted or enjoyed. NFP requires NOT having sex. I've asked this multiple times now: If NFP is just another form of contraception, but it's the only "OK" form, then why don't more couple choose it? What is it about NFP that is so unappealing when compared with a pill, a condom or a vasectomy? Can you come up with any other answer other than abstaining from sex when you really don't want to?

Abstinence can only be defined by a period of time. For example, an 18 year is abstinent until he is married (ideally). His period of abstinence is longer than a married couple who abstains for a fertile week. Or even a fertile couple who abstains from sex for a month or two after child birth. Intentionally avoiding sex that you would like to be having IS abstinence, regardless of how long that period of time is. Permanent "abstinence" is not abstinence. It's celibacy.

What you are pointing out by saying couple abuse NFP is NOT contraception. It is a separate and distinct sin, which the document you reference points out. All over the document it is talking about abstaining. Pope Paul VI is warning of not falling into either of the sins, hence the term "another grave problem" is how your quote begins. You are intent on equating the two when we, as well as your eastern forefathers, drew distinct lines between the two

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

These threads depress me. Look at the Gospels. No Bible, no book larger than the Bible itself such as the CCC yet people drawn to the Savior Himself.

No fancy robes. No fancy buildings. No fancy productions. Just faith.

How does anything on this thread or others like it lead someone to Christ? Reads like mass confusion not "The Way, The Truth and The Life".

Seems like "religion" and "dogma" led us astray. What happened to the simple faith of a child?

---

This whole thread is addressing the question of how we can have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. True unity. The problem is that questions do arise. A number of the new testament books were written for the very reason that there was disunity in those local churches. There was confusion and strife back then too. So what did they do to address it? They turned to the apostles. What did they do when the apostles were gone? The turned to the successors of the apostles. What did they do when those successors were gone? They turned to their successors. So on and so forth until very recently.

Look at the reformers. Within the first two decades of "sola scriptura" there were massive theological divides that arose. Luther vs Calvin vs Zwingli etc. All believed in Jesus and faith alone, and yet none of them were in agreement with each other. Go check some of the things Luther said about Zwingli, which would naturally apply to Calvin as they agreed on many things. Jesus left leaders, guided by the Holy Spirit, for a reason. People are going to disagree and some method of recourse is needed to keep them together.

I will agree that it is depressing. I despise all of the differentiation in churches. My prayer is that we all unite as one body, even if the road to get there is difficult.

I'll get to the other comments in a bit but I just want to point this out. NFP is not abstinence. It just isn't.

NFP is having sex during times of natural infertility. NFP is ONLY for people who want to have sex, don't want kids, and want to avoid other methods.

If you were just abstinent, or simply required abstinence when couples don't want kids it wouldn't be a contradiction.

Choosing to have sex when fertility is low isn't functionally different than pulling out. Except that pulling out is less effective.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I'll get to the other comments in a bit but I just want to point this out. NFP is not abstinence. It just isn't.

NFP is having sex during times of natural infertility. NFP is ONLY for people who want to have sex, don't want kids, and want to avoid other methods.

If you were just abstinent, or simply required abstinence when couples don't want kids it wouldn't be a contradiction.

Choosing to have sex when fertility is low isn't functionally different than pulling out. Except that pulling out is less effective.

---

So if my fianc and I really want to have sex before marriage and don't, that is abstinence. But if my wife and I don't have sex when we really want to, somehow it's not abstinence? Can you explain that?

You say it's for people who "want to avoid other methods". What is it about those other methods that they are trying to avoid? What is inherently different between them? For example, pulling out means you still had sex, right? Can you not see a difference in "had nice sex and blew my load into a towel" and "really, REALLY want to have sex right now but not going to because we're in xyz situation right now, so I'm going to suffer through this"? You are ignoring the guiding philosophy of the entire practice and then say that the two actions are equal. It doesn't work that way.

Your 3rd line is exactly what the church prescribes (with a few details on what "don't want kids" means). If you mean they should vow to never have sex ever again, that's celibacy.

Lastly, if we are saying that not having sex during a fertile time period is contraceptive, it would follow that every fertile period should REQUIRE sex. Even letting a fertile period pass because y'all aren't in the mood would be a sin. No one teaches this and has never taught this. This is what happens when we assume the means are the same because the end is the same. There is a reason the phrase "the ends don't justify the means" is a thing.

ETA: It's striking me now how those saying NFP is the same thing as contraception are failing to factor in just how powerful those urges can be during fertile times. If y'all are married, y'all should know how hard it is to say no when both parties really, really want to go. To say that facing those desires and putting them off for whatever intense reason you're dealing with is the same as pulling out or putting on a condom really aren't considering the situation very deeply. Which is why basically every couple that doesn't want more kids gets on contraception. They know they will eventually fail because it's nothing like the freedom that contraceptives offer

Quote:

---

So how does the EP granting Ukrainian autocephaly against the wishes of it's mother church not show that Constantinople is the "top tier"? The See has published that it's the "first without equals" and that is necessary to not fall into the error of Protestantism. You are in communion with him, so I'd ask if you see these as grievous errors?

---

Because politics exist, war exists, and because people are fallible. I'm not a bishop, he's not my bishop, so my opinion is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

If you want to say he has primacy above others in ecclesial matters but not theological, you'll run into issues there as well.

---

No, its neither. He's a bishop, there is no "tier" in the clergy above bishop. It's not deacon, priest, bishop, patriarch. Just ends at bishop.

Quote:

---

As you said, you can't freely flow from bishop to bishop in EO.

---

I don't understand what you think this means. Bishops themselves can't move around into some other parish, nor can clergy move around. You can read all about this in the Apostolic canons. If your bishop excommunicates you, for example, no other bishop can reinstate you. Apostolic succession is real. (See, for example, canon 34)

On the other hand, if you move, you move. If you move from a place that has multiple churches like a big city to a place that has only one Orthodox church, that is where you will go. The "proper" way to do this is to bring a letter from your priest or bishop. In practice you show up and say "hey I was baptized at x parish" and you become a member at that church. What Orthodox church it is doesn't matter as long as they're in communion with each other.

Now if you leave because you despise your bishop, there's a problem. Authority and submission are real, too.

Quote:

---

Hypothetical problem: if I have a bishop that says contraception is a grave sin (say Antiochian), but another bishop (say OCA) next door says it's not, one of them must be correct. If I believe the bishop next door is correct and he is willing to allow me the use of contraception (or remarriage or whatever other issue) and I'm not allowed to align under him, how is this unified? I'm bound to a bishop's authority to make me do something that another bishop would allow me to do? Am I my bishop's property?

---

Again, I don't understand this "not allowed" business. First, how can anyone "make you" do something? Do you think the bishop will command you to use contraception? How is this any different than your personal bishop commanding you to murder? Are you his property?

This exact same hypothetical can play out in your own church. Your local parish priest may require something of you - penance or whatever - bar you from the chalice, whatever - for whatever issue, and you may go "parish shopping" to find a priest who won't. This happens in Orthodox churches, too, mind you. It's no different than if you disagree with your bishop on any topic. Who has authority? Again - apostolic succession is real.

Second, this topic falls under obedience. Obedience is a basic virtue, truly the first virtue - the core of the Christian faith being humility, repentance, obedience, and love. We are called to obedience to God, the Church, clergy, the government, and each other. This is why not many should be teachers - they are responsible for their own sins and the sins of their congregation AND the consequences of their teaching!

Quote:

---

Even analogizing this with switching parents shows that we're not really in union in this scenario. It's weird to even consider switching bishops as changing out dads. It reads as "my flock, your flock" rather than the one flock that is under the care of many bishops. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, not cousins in Christ. The free flow from one bishop to another (in our modern global world) should allow for seamless teaching because there is one church.

---

You are belaboring a metaphor.

If you have more than one father, you have no father. "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."


Again, each of our bishops functions as your pope.

At any rate, I disagree with your ecclesiology here. The catholic church is where the bishop and his flock is - "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." The church, in its fullness (for this is the meaning of Catholic) is there with each bishop and his flock. There is no diminishment of the bishop and his flock by way of the whole, because unity is found in the Eucharist.

Quote:

---

So who do you go with? Your local bishop is saying the church fathers rejected it but your current patriarch says it's ok (based on individual circumstances). Can you see how this doesn't come across as a unified front to an outsider?

---

My friend, are you ever going to acknowledge that YOU know, and I know that you know, that websites are not church teaching?

Second, "preventative methods of birth control that are not abortifacient and do not harm fertility" excludes hormonal birth control as they harm fertility. That would be NFP.

Third, "my local bishop" was Bishop Basil, who retired. At the moment my bishop is Metropolitan Saba, not Bishop Thomas. In the interim, Fr Calinic, a monk, is serving as archiepiscopal vicar for our diocese (would be surprised if he is not our bishop eventually, but I don't know anything).

Fourth - and really this is the only thing that matters - unity is not about a "unified front". Unity is found in one place, and one place only, and that is in Christ, in the Eucharist. Period, end of discission. If you don't see this, then we are at a truly deep impasse.

Quote:

---

To annulment, I've shown where an eastern council has said a marriage can be declared null. Do you think they were saying God was stupid when they declared those canons?

---

No. The cases for annulment are where there cannot be valid marriage, i.e., force, relatives, duress, men who were already ordained, or multiple marriages. Places where the marriage is in itself invalid. Not a "fault of the contract" approach, which is the western view.

Again, you genuinely don't understand the difference, and that is ok. Suffice to say, marriage is not a contract in the Orthodox church, therefore a "fault" in the contract does not make it "null". This is a material difference.

This is a thorough review of the topic.
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2022/02/26/the-theology-of-marriage-in-orthodox-christianity/

Quote:

---

Let me try to show where you already accept a similar distinction between an ceremony and a sacrament:

- If a catholic converts to orthodoxy, most times they won't need to be rebaptized. Why? The baptism was seen as a valid sacrament
- If a Mormon converts, they will need to be rebaptized, despite being baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. Why? The intent and view of the trinity was all wrong, and as such, was not sacramental

---

... I mean, I genuinely feel like you are proving my point here? The baptism of heretics has no validity in and of itself.

On the other hand, we don't remarry people who were married outside the church. Because if you are married, you are married. Going to Trullo, canon 72 - "if any who up to this time are unbelievers and are not yet numbered in the flock of the orthodox have contracted lawful marriage between themselves, and if then, one choosing the right and coming to the light of truth and the other remaining still detained by the bond of error and not willing to behold with steady eye the divine rays, the unbelieving woman is pleased to cohabit with the believing man, or the unbelieving man with the believing woman, let them not be separated." In other words, being lawfully married outside of the church, they are well and truly married. If you are married outside of the church, your marriage is blessed, not re-performed. Because, again, you're married. No "contract" problem or legal issue changes that.

This distinction between abstinence and celibacy exists only in your mind. Pope Pius in the quote simply calls it "abstain from every complete performance of the natural faculty" clearly in a permanent view.

Quote:

---

NFP requires NOT having sex.

---

ok? Christianity teaches all kinds of periods of abstinence - during a period, during fasts, etc. None of these are purposeful to avoid pregnancy. Only one does that, which is avoiding the ~1 week period of fertility.

Abstaining from the marriage bed during a fast is not contraception. Doing it intentionally, routinely, only during the fertile window absolutely is, no matter how many times you say otherwise. Which is precisely why if, a person does it without a grave or serious reason, they are sinning.

It's not arbitrary abstinence, which you seem to be implying. It is purposeful, specific abstinence, followed by periods of non-abstinence, with intent to have sex but not have kids, which is the *exact problem* of contraception.