To “do ‘A’ just as ‘B’” requires that ‘A’ could be done the same as ‘B’… I can’t go back and ask Peter of Spain about this which is being said of him now… I guess I can write to the OCA’s Metropolitan being that he is alive on the same plane of existence as I.

But at least you are disabused of your ignorance of this heretofor being an issue – in fact “the pill” (what does it cure?) has been with us far longer than pills we call “the pill” have been.

As far as I can see, the “problem” has certainly been around a very long time.

The ancient Greek colony of Cyrene at one time had an economy based almost entirely on the production and export of silphium, a powerful abortifacient in the parsley family. Silphium figured so prominently in the wealth of Cyrene that the plant appeared on the obverse and reverse of coins minted there. – Wiki

Didn’t know they had birth control pills etc; back in those day.

Now you do. Now why isn’t the OCA making it clear that abortifacient ABC is NOT allowed?

So procopius – is it your contention now that there was no understanding of abortifacients in the ancient world (in light of this discovery you present) or no?

What are we to make of the fact that the OCA on its website allows for couples to decide on the use of birth control but does not qualify it to barrier method only? Why is no mention made of “the pill” as still a no-no as it is frequently NOT a contraceptive but rather an abortifacient? It seems like a wise thing to do in light of the popularity of “the pill” – without such direction, doesn’t it stand to reason that these couples who are to “decide for themselves” could then be deciding on abortifacients?

“Didn’t know they had birth control pills etc; back in those day.”

Well, be ignorant no more – they certainly did.

Artificial means of contraception condemned
Gal 5:20; Rev 9:2; Rev 21:8
These three passages condemn “sorcery”. However, the Greek word used is pharmakeia, a word denoting pharmaceutical contraceptives and abortificants.

See also:
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/contra1.html

also (via wikipedia):

The ancient Greek colony of Cyrene at one time had an economy based almost entirely on the production and export of silphium, a powerful abortifacient in the parsley family. Silphium figured so prominently in the wealth of Cyrene that the plant appeared on the obverse and reverse of coins minted there. Silphium, which was native only to that part of Libya, was overharvested by the Greeks and was effectively driven to extinction. The standard theory, however, has been challenged by a whole spectrum of alternatives (from an extinction due to climate factors, to the so-coveted product being in fact a recipe made of a composite of herbs, attribution to a single species meant perhaps as a disinformation attempt).

I am no theologian or historian. I am a Byzantine Catholic by accident of birth. And by that, I mean that I was born to Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans.) As such, reconciling myself to the Catholic faith in it’s fullness begins by joining in communion with my patriarch, the Bishop of Rome.

That is one way of looking at my journey, anyhow.

My point is that I really have no axe to grind either way. So, I intend no aspersion when asking if anyone notices that there seems to be an assumption that Orthodox ecclessiology is, well, orthodox. I think that our gracious host has a few posts describing the need for a clearer Orthodox understanding of it’s own ecclessiology.

And, again, perhaps my background looms too largely. For, certainly, it has come to be seen that one of the greatest impediments to reconciling the “protestant” traditions, as traditions, is knowing who speaks for them. Ecclessiology.

It is an entirely other matter, of course, with Orthodoxy. It is in no way defficient. (sorry if that smarts, my evangelical brothers). Nonetheless, an honest appraisal is quite essential.

Also: Are rank-and-file Westerners more open to compromise than rank-and-file Easterners?(Not suggesting more desire for unity in one direction or the other.)

Also: Don’t forget how important it is to PRAY together!

While all of this high-level discussion is necessary, living our own prayers, as well as those of our brothers, is at least as important if we are to finally find how to be obedient in this thing our Lord desires so much.

“Does that mean they still accept and promulgate the ancient patristic teaching against contraception?”

From wikipedia;

Surprisingly, one of the most comprehensive recipe books for pre- and post-coital contraception was written by a man who became pope. Peter of Spain, who offered advice on birth control and how to provoke menstruation in his immensely popular Thesaurus Pauperam (Treasure of the Poor), was elected Pope John XXI in 1276 (Riddle, 1992). Many of Peter’s recipes have been found surprisingly effective by contemporary research, and it is believed that women in antiquity had more control over their reproduction than previously believed (Riddle, 1994).

Thank you. Your response gives me much to think about.

The text I cited cannot be found in the Acta because they are in the Sessions, which I have in a form translated from the Greek. It is the work of a teacher of mine.

If the consent of the Pentarch is not part of the minimum criteria for an ecumenical council, what then would make a council ecumenical, apart from any self-claim of being so?

The existence of Latin patriarchates in the East is of course problematic–both canonically and theologically. Thanks.

W.H.

Do you think that the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council were wrong about their criteria of ecumenicity?

Dear Mr Wan (or is it Mr Wei-Hsien; my apologies if I am mangling your name),

As I mentioned when last we discussed this subject, I am still somewhat skeptical that this is the view of the Nicene fathers. I cannot find the quote in the acta of the council. Granting that it is there for the sake of argument, however, I suppose that I do think that they are wrong to postulate these criteria because, as I said before, according to these criteria we would have to toss out councils which we all agree are ecumenical. If we are willing to overlook that which Bishop Zoghby is willing to give Chalcedon a pass on the Nicene-fathers-test, then I see no reason not to give Trent a pass as well.

In the case of Constantinople I, are you saying that the later ratification given by the Pope cannot be sufficiently regarded as “cooperation” (synergon)…

Well, yes and no. What I am saying is that Constantinople I is an ecumenical council and has been an ecumenical council since it came to order in 381. And yet, for all that, no Pope ever gave his assent to the council until centuries after it had closed. Evidently, then, consent of a Pentarch is not an indispensible criterion of an ecumenical council, and if that is true of Constantinople I then it can be true of Vatican I as well. (Besides, the pentarchs all approved of Vatican I, at least so long as you are willing to consider the Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria as pentarchs).

What if I were to take the position of a “non-Chalcedonian”, and really call into question the ecumenicity of Chalcedon and all subsequent councils?

But that is my very point – I was listing Chalcedon, Constantinople II and Constantinople III as spurious-by-Zoghby’s-lights because the councils were held without the participation of interested parties. If that really is a critical failure of “ecumenicity,” then these councils (which we all regard as ecumenical) are spurious. Given that they are not spurious, it seems to me that we have to question the merit of Bishop Zoghby’s criteria.

You and I have had a similar conversation over Cathedra Unitatis, and we did not get a chance to continue it.

1. Do you think that the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council were wrong about their criteria of ecumenicity? It’s not Archbishop Elias whom we have to deal with, but rather the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council (to whom the dog, I think, really belongs.) Could you comment on what you think these Sessions mean?

2. I’m not sure what you mean when you raise the list of councils that might fail to meet the criteria, but I do have question about one of the cases. In the case of Constantinople I, are you saying that the later ratification given by the Pope cannot be sufficiently regarded as “cooperation” (synergon), and therefore it seems that a council can be ecumenical even if it didn’t have the ratification of the Pope? (I’m merely trying to infer here.)

3. What if I were to take the position of a “non-Chalcedonian”, and really call into question the ecumenicity of Chalcedon and all subsequent councils? This is by no means my real theological stance, but I am suggesting that the “if you take this piece out, everything will fall apart” argument only begs the question, “And what if it does? Can’t we just rebuild?”

W.H.