Replies

From the OCA Questions and Answer page:

I would like to know what is the orthodox canon regarding the "original sin." The following confuse me:
Father Michael Azkoul states that God punished man only once for the original sin by introducing death, and the original sin wasn't transferred to the next generations. He says (on the OCF website): "The Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is ..."
On the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto's page there is a totally different statement: "Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's."

Note: Gee, that's the SAME PAGE that YOU QUOTED FROM! Imagine that! Isn't it amazing that you just happened to quote from the very same page???

Concerning the original -- or "first" -- sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin. In the article by Fr. Azkoul, he deals with this quite clearly in the sections above the quote which you sent in your email. There is nothing wrong with his statement.
Concerning the second passage -- from the Toronto Metropolis' web site -- it would probably have been clearer to the reader had the sentence read as follows: "Worst of all, the consequences of the original sin are hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's." I am not sure that there is any conflict whatsoever; rather, the second passage needs to be clarified.
Finally, the "Orthodox canons" are not statements of doctrine; rather, they are the "canon laws" drafted by the early Church councils. Canons deal with Church discipline and order, not with doctrine. They are found in the proceedings of the seven ecumenical councils and the local councils of the early Church. If by asking "if the Orthodox canons are published and available for purchase" you refer to Canon Law, please let me know, and I will direct you to places where you can purchase them. If you are interested in doctrinal material, however, collections of canons would not contain the fundamental teachings of the faith.

From the same page:

The control of the conception of a child by any means is also condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc.
Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.

You see, we Orthodox would not insist that a married couple risk conceiving a child in the face of evidence that the child would inherit a dangerous genetic defect or if the health of the mother could be endangered.

Somewhere along the way, Roman Catholics have gotten it into there head that Orthodox can use contraception for any reason whatsoever. Perhaps it is because such propaganda servers their earthly purposes, but, quite clearly, it is a falsehood.

Now that you know the diference, repeating such a falsehood would constitute "false witness."

Note: Gee, that's the SAME PAGE that YOU QUOTED FROM! Imagine that! Isn't it amazing that you just happened to quote from the very same page???

You really need some new tinfoil. Your conspiracies are getting to you. Really, I'm not part of some big anti-Orthodox conspiracy. Try Googling "Orthodox Catechism", which is what I did. The Metropolitan of Toronto's site comes up on the first page. If you can't trust the Metropolitan of Toronto, why should I trust the OCA to be anymore official regarding whatever they heck you slippery folk do believe?

Concerning the original -- or "first" -- sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin. In the article by Fr. Azkoul, he deals with this quite clearly in the sections above the quote which you sent in your email. There is nothing wrong with his statement.

With all due respect, whoever wrote this does not have a clue about what Catholics believe. The Eastern Orthodox make a great show of opposing Jansenism and Calvinism by calling it "Catholicism". Would you please, just once, actually read what we say about our faith, rather than making it up? What do you disagree with from the paragraphs below?

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".[293] By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,[295] original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Or to let me summarize what you say, "the end justifies the means."

Catholics don't accept that as a Moral principal. If there is some serious risk from pregnancy, the Catholic Church encourages the couple to live in perpetual chastity, or at least severly limit their use of sexual intercourse to times of no possiblity of conception (immediately before and during the start of the woman's period) if they must come together. Contraception is not only immoral, it is also unreliable, as is sterilization.

My wife's grandmother had serious complications in her sole pregnancy with my mother-in-law, and the doctor told her: "no more children", much to her and her husband's chagrin and disgust (she came from a family of 14, her husband was one of 10). They both bore this cross with patience and faith and died holy deaths fortified with the Sacraments of Holy Church, leaving behind a single daughter, my mother-in-law, filled with the faith of Christ.

The existence of a good end does not justify the use of immoral means.

I never said that "any reason whatsoever". I said simply that the Orthodox Church allows it. As the Anglicans proved in 1930, once you start down that slippery slope, human selfishness quickly justifies all manner of occasions. You fellows are about 40-50 years behind them. Was there any Orthodox who approved of artifical contraception for any reason prior to, say, 1950?

The Catholic Church does not compromise her moral principals to suit the spirit of the age. Semper idem.