P
Pax
Guest
Is this really what I said? Please stay on point with your answers.
I am still waiting on this one.
- Status
I am still waiting on this one.
P
Pax
Guest
The sin of contraception has been brought up. This is a great starting point for a prophecy given by a Pope that is spot on. Try reading Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. You can access the encyclical at the Vatican website:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
I strongly recommend reading this encyclical before making a judgment about the morality of artificial birth control.
Now to the prophetic part. In this encyclical the Pope says the following things which are prophetic:
"Consequences of Artificial Methods
- …Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. …
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Limits to Man’s Power
Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed."
…
Now let’s examine what has happened subsequent to Humanae Vitae.
Women are in fact routinely treated as sexual objects and instruments of men’s pleasure. The evidence of this comes through in advertisements, magazines, internet porn, movies, etc.
The message society is sending is that sex and pleasure are “the ends” of what has frequently become little more than a physical sport. Pregnancy is to be avoided at almost every turn. Abstinence is considered nonsense.
Promiscuity is rampant.
Those that engage in artificial forms of birth control are much more likely to have abortions. Those that accept the Church’s teaching do not. Artificial forms of birth control create a mindset that is already set against the unborn infant which makes the so called “option” of abortion that much easier.
How about governments?
China imposes artificial birth control. Violations and accidental pregnancies exceeding the government restrictions result in forced abortions.
In America, “pro choice” essentially means that the only choice is abortion. Pro-lifers are considered to be anti-women.
In America, state governments are attempting by legislation to force Catholic Institutions to provide artificial birth control through medical plans. Some Catholic charities, hospitals, etc. are responding by opting out of providing medical plans for their employees. The employees must take the employer subsidy for medical insurance and shop for their own insurance.
State governments are attempting to “force” Catholic hospitals to provide abortions.
States are funding embryonic stem cell research which goes way beyond all reasonable bounds of the natural and moral law. Embryos are created in a petri dish, their stem cells removed, and the embryo is destroyed.
Shall we go on?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Pax, good point on Humanae Vitae!
It sort of reminds me of the Sermon on the Mount.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Contraception was the sin that led to the sexual depravity and moral bankruptcy we have today. Just as looking at a woman with lust is like committing adultery. Once the seed is planted, it feeds and it grows.
It sort of reminds me of the Sermon on the Mount.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Contraception was the sin that led to the sexual depravity and moral bankruptcy we have today. Just as looking at a woman with lust is like committing adultery. Once the seed is planted, it feeds and it grows.
P
Pax
Guest
Sadly, I was once a cafeteria catholic and practiced artificial contraception. Fortunately, the Lord gave me the grace to see the error of my ways. I am grateful for the grace of God and for his mercy and forgiveness. Nevertheless, the regret remains and I will live with that for the rest of my life.
The really great thing is that this area of life is what set me on the way to a second conversion and a much deeper love of God. The Lord’s light dispels the darkness.
The really great thing is that this area of life is what set me on the way to a second conversion and a much deeper love of God. The Lord’s light dispels the darkness.
P
Pax
Guest
ckempston,
Catholics enjoy an ancient miracle that continues through each day.
Malachi 1:11-12 gives a prophecy. It says:
“For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.”
Everyday from the rising of the sun until its setting a Catholic mass is being celebrated. Jesus precious body and blood are the perfect offering in the Catholic mass. The food of the Holy Eucharist is the precious body and blood upon the Lord’s table that some despise and claim to be nothing more than bread and wine.
The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith, and it is a miracle seen and partaken of somewhere around the globe every hour of everyday. You have before you a prophecy and you have the miracle that fulfills it.
Catholics enjoy an ancient miracle that continues through each day.
Malachi 1:11-12 gives a prophecy. It says:
“For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.”
Everyday from the rising of the sun until its setting a Catholic mass is being celebrated. Jesus precious body and blood are the perfect offering in the Catholic mass. The food of the Holy Eucharist is the precious body and blood upon the Lord’s table that some despise and claim to be nothing more than bread and wine.
The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith, and it is a miracle seen and partaken of somewhere around the globe every hour of everyday. You have before you a prophecy and you have the miracle that fulfills it.
P
Pax
Guest
I would not be surprised.
C
ckempston
Guest
Sorry, but these multiple responses are getting a little hard to juggle. I’ll try to keep up.
That you checked several translations regarding Peter’s hypocrisy, which Paul points out, is irrelevant. Paul also points out that Peter FORCED Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. You’ve got blinders on. Peter clearly taught an incorrect doctrine. Since this doesn’t really contradict Papal Infallability as Catholics understand it today, I’m not sure why you’re being so vehement about it.
I don’t disagree with this. Not sure what you’re trying to prove.
Don’t much care what Protestant faiths though prior to 1930. Nowhere in the Bible is contraception spoken against, even in the case of Onan.… and you CAN quote me on that!
Well, every Protestant faith disagreed with you prior to 1930. But the Truth has changed. When did Christ reveal this new Revelation?
None of those miracles was performed by anybody (in the strict sense, except perhaps God if they were indeed miracles).
P
Pax
Guest
You are still wrong about what I said, and I implied nothing of the sort.
The facts are simple. Peter never taught anything in error, and neither did Paul. The gambit that you are pursuing is a total error. Peter behaved hypocritically. This is completely different from teaching doctrinal error. If you are unable to make this distinction then I suggest further study.
Please show me in scripture where it says that either Peter or Paul gave an erroneous teaching.
Y
YADA
Guest
All miracles come by and through God … no person performs a miracle but through the power of God.
Scripture does not say that Peter taught error or “compelled” conformity with Jewish Law … there were judaizers who came from Jerusalem … they wanted to and attempted to compell adherance … Peter acted with hypocracy by not eating at table with the gentile christians … if this refusal coincided withthe Eucharistic meal this was grievous … Peter did not practice what he preached …
[And itis noteworthy that Paul actually did compel circumcision - both men failed to live up to the Christian ideals - but Paul’s failure was more hypocritical - as he had challenged Peter over table fellowship - IMHO]
And it should bother you that Christian belief, faith and practice changes with time … there is truth and there is TRUTH - one is subjective and the other is objective… true morality [moral behavoir] does not change over time … something that is immoral is always immoral …
P
Pax
Guest
Just how do you figure that the sin of Onan has nothing to do with contraception?
P
Pax
Guest
Likewise, how is it that you don’t care what the constant Christian teaching was on artificial contraception prior to 1930?
Please keep in mind that this was the universal teaching in all of Christianity. Please explain your statement.
Please keep in mind that this was the universal teaching in all of Christianity. Please explain your statement.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Vehement? I"m being vehement?
Back to your point. I’ll reiterate.
You say that Peter taught an incorrect doctrine. You agree that Peter had an incorrect practice (eating separately from the Gentiles).
This is heresy. But Paul is specific in calling it hypocrisy. Since you agree that Peter’s error is eating separately (as Paul describes), then he can’t be teaching incorrectly, or it wouldn’t by hypocritical.
Well, you disagreed earlier in the thread.
On sinfulness in Protestant doctrines:
So, how can one be sure that a faith is teaching correctly, if it changes the rules willy-nilly?
This is sinful. Now, it’s not. Oh, but now it is.
Man, I don’t know why you’re being so vehement about this?
Ok. Try this:
C
ckempston
Guest
Are you kidding me? Someone predicts women will be treated as sexual objects and regularly participate in abortions, pornography, and sexual immorality, and you call this a prophecy? I’m sorry, but that is laughable. Abortions, porn, sexual immorality, and disrespect for women have been going on for long before there was a Catholic church to condemn it. Abortions were performed by the ancients by bounding a woman’s stomach or by taking certain drugs. Porn and prostitution are also nothing new, it’s just that in our media-based society, people are more likely to realize that it goes on. I don’t think the frequency of immorality has changed much at all - just the fact that now we know about it when it happens because of the media - e.g. Elliot Spitzer.
For the record, I don’t disagree that abortions, birth control pills that are essentially abortificants, sex outside marriage, and immorality/impurity in general are all grevious sins. The problem is the church’s view on marriage/sex/procreation. There’s nothing in the Bible that says sex for something other than procreation, or methods of reducing the possibility of procreation are wrong. In any case, the “old fashioned” rythm method is no different than using a physical barrier. They do not remove the possibility of pregnancy, just lessen the probability of one intentionally, just like the rythm method intentionally decreases the liklihood of pregnancy.
The real issue here is that the Catholic church increasingly incorporated asceticism into its doctrines throughout the ages, and that’s all this is: a bunch of dudes who, for the most part, don’t have sex, have never been married, and have never been fathers telling the rest of the world how to have sex, be married, and be fathers. That fact of the matter is that (outside of the destruction of a life) the Scriptures are silent on contraception. Where the Bible is silent, conscience takes over. Abortions, abortificant drugs and/or physical measures are immoral and go against God’s Law. There is nothing wrong with methods of contraception that do not violate the Scriptures.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Are you saying that the moral values of our society as a whole are relatively unchanged since the late 50’s-early 60’s?!?!?
While every vice mentioned existed existed prior to this, the acceptance of these vices has spiraled downward until we have the society that we have today. What took centuries in other civilizations took two or three decades in our time.
Except one is a natural means, and one is un-natural.
Careful, now. The leopard may be showing his spots. What started out as a civil discourse is spiraling out of control faster than the afore-mentioned morals of our society.
Oh, so God killed one person. How many people does God have to kill before we get the point?
I thought “What you loose on earth, is loosed in heaven…” was a more Scriptural means of determining morals when the bible is silent.
Exactly.
K
kepha1
Guest
Where exactly does Peter force anybody to do anything at any time, let alone Galations 2:14???
Galatians 2
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter’s evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter’s teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile’s salvation in Acts 10,11.
With this rebuke, Paul is really saying “Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!” The verse really underscores, and not diminishes the importance of Peter’s leadership in the Church.
This verse has come up repeatedly in this thread. Erroneous behavior is NOT TEACHING. Peter is not teaching a doctrine while in fear and hiding from the Judaizers. Peter is a Jew when with the Jews, and a Gentile when with the Gentiles. Pauls question in verse 14 is rhetorical, as that is Paul’s style. It reveals the absolute ridiculousness of Peter telling Gentiles to follow the law, because the issue here is not about Gentiles, it is about Peter’s fear of the powerful Judaizers. Show me anywhere in the bible and all of history where Gentiles were doctrinally forced to be Jews in order to be Christians. Peter’s infallible teaching of salvation to the Gentiles further makes the Paul over Peter argument absurd.
Infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability, and I think one reason why Protestants get this so mixed up is because the quality of teaching depends on the impeccability of their pastors. If the pastor sins, his teaching becomes tainted.
This man-centered mentality is projected onto Catholicism, because it seems that if a Pope sins, all the teachings of the Church become discredited.
Another theory why Protestants get so mixed up is the total rejection of our Jewish heritage. The early Christians were Jews. They were free from the law, but they still could practice being Jews, as did Paul, Peter, and all the Apostles. The early Christians Christianized the Jewish feast days, they did not abandon everything the way Martin Luther did. Many rubrics and liturgies are rooted in Judaism, they are not add-ons. Luther hated the Jews and got rid of anything and everything that looked Jewish, and that is why a lot of Catholic rubrics seem so strange to Protestants, especially a teaching body, the Magisterium, that is modelled after the Old Davidic Kingdom. The Toda sacrifice that was prophecied to last forever is rendered meaningless to Protestants. They have no heritage.
I’m trying not to be offensive here, but rejection of papal authority stems from individualism and nominalism, both serious heresies that have backfired the whole original point of the reformation.
P
Pax
Guest
I do not know your age or life experience, but I can tell you from my own that you are completely wrong about the prevailing attitudes prior and subsequent to Humanae Vitae. Obviously, immorality has existed ever since the fall, but never has it been like this especially among Christians. I was an adult in 1968 and I remember what was being said and what was going on. Likewise, I remember all of the rhetoric associated with abortion prior to and after the release of the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe vs. Wade.
Nobody thought that abortion was going to be used as “another form of birth control.” Nobody thought that women would be denigrated to the level of sexual objects as they are today. Nobody thought that marriage would become obsolete among many people. Nobody thought that divorce rates would sky rocket. The arguments were largely the other way in our society. Nobody thought there would be 1.4 million abortions a year.
Please, I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but you don’t know what you’re talking about or you are simply in denial because you can’t handle the truth.
I have some personal business to handle and have to get off the net, but when I come back I fully intend to shred the second half of your post if no one beats me to it. You have a fictional understanding of Catholicism. You attack a strawman.
po18guy
Well-known member
As a practical matter, let’s give thanks for those successors. If not for them, the bible would never have been assembled. Factions would have decided their own canon, with no continuity or unity of direction or purpose. We would likely follow Mohammad now.
The power to bind and loose. “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven”. This includes everything. Christ, the ultimate prophet, knew what the future held, yet still bestowed that authority on the Apostles. He did so knowing what they would do with it.
We didn’t invent this. It was handed on to us from of old.
Christ’s peace.
P
Pax
Guest
I suggest that you read up on the Church’s view of sex in marriage and procreation. Likewise, your view of scripture on the issue of contraception is simply silly. Onan says it all and there is no further need for scripture to go on about the subject. The reason for the further “relative” silence of scripture on this matter is rather simple. The Jews did not practice artificial contraception and it was totally incompatible with their religious and cultural practices. If it were an issue for them it would have received a lot more scriptural attention.
Nevertheless, scripture does say some other things on the subject. For the most part scripture speaks of procreation “positively” throughout. Please find one scripture for me that does not speak positively about “filling the earth,” having a “full quiver,” or any other reference to child bearing. I’ll save you the trouble…there simply aren’t any.
Scripture condemns the following: Divination, soothsayers, augurs, sorcerers, charmers, mediums, wizards, and necromancers. This can be seen in Deut 18:10-12 and other places. The most interesting of these for our purposes is the sorcerers. The sorcerers in ancient times frequently prepared potions for the prevention of pregnancy and for aborting pregnancies among the pagans. Their practices are clearly condemned in scripture even though the mechanisms for preventing pregnancy were not clearly understood. In other words they didn’t have a clue as to whether or not they were abortafacient in nature.
The book of Revelation also condemns the sorcerers and does so more than once. In each case the sorcerers and their activities are described in the Greek by using the term pharmakon or one of its derivatives. This word is the source for our word pharmacy and pharmacueticals. The intent is directly associated with potions particularly those for prevention of pregnancy and for terminating pregnancy. Such things were inimical to Jewish and Christian thinking.
Christians everywhere, therefore, believed and taught, up until 1930 that artificial birth control whether by barrier or chemical was a serious offense against God. You may think that scripture is a little thin on this subject, but you can be sure of three things.
- Scripture never suggests anything that supports your view.
- Scripture condemns things associated with your view more than once.
- Jews and Christians always disagreed with your point of view until modern times. They did this based on scripture and Tradition.
- Status