Authority of the Church

[Old_Scholar]

Yeah, I could cut and paste Mea Culpa’s post if you’d like!

To do that would be doing the same thingjust copying from someone else’s blog. That is just one person’s opinion, nothing official. I have given you an official document—can you do the same for your position?

 

[Old_Scholar]

OS
You wrote:

Would you like to listen to what Jesus Christg (some ‘man’) said and become a Catholic?

I appreciate your presence here. Your posts are courteous, respectful, knowledgable and sincere.

Without your contributions the debates would be less rigorou, duller and more vague.

You force us to consider and explain our faith scripturally.

I know many here won’t believe it but that is my main intention…and in doing so, I also learn…

 

[NoelFitz]

OS

Thank you for your reply.

I am sorry I had to disagree with you re* The Good Thief.*

You never answered my question about why you have the picture of (presumably) St Antony in your posrts.

Why do you contribute here?

 

[Old_Scholar]

OS

Thank you for your reply.

I am sorry I had to disagree with you re* The Good Thief.*

You never answered my question about why you have the picture of (presumably) St Antony in your posrts.

Why do you contribute here?

I am not aware that I have that picture in my posts…?

 

[NotWorthy]

To do that would be doing the same thingjust copying from someone else’s blog. That is just one person’s opinion, nothing official. I have given you an official document—can you do the same for your position?

You’ve given me a document that states that since 1981 your church has allowed contraception. This receives no argument from any of us. But can you show us where your church condemned it in the 50’s? How about the 60’s? Maybe even the 70’s.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You’ve given me a document that states that since 1981 your church has allowed contraception. This receives no argument from any of us. But can you show us where your church condemned it in the 50’s? How about the 60’s? Maybe even the 70’s.

I cannot find where the Lutheral Church ever took a stand on contraception. In 1923 when it came up, they took no stand. In 1931, again they took no stand and are still studying the issue today with no firm stand. However I have listed their official statement made in 1981 already.

Here is the best link I can find: HERE

However I did find where the ELCA, the liberal Lutheran Church, did make a statement in favor of allowing contraception. Of course they allow everything else as well so I don’t count them at all.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I cannot find where the Lutheral Church ever took a stand on contraception. In 1923 when it came up, they took no stand. In 1931, again they took no stand and are still studying the issue today with no firm stand. However I have listed their official statement made in 1981 already.

Here is the best link I can find: HERE

However I did find where the ELCA, the liberal Lutheran Church, did make a statement in favor of allowing contraception. Of course they allow everything else as well so I don’t count them at all.

It’s not hard to find the Catholic Church’s position on contraception. They have consistently been against it.

 

[NotWorthy]

I cannot find where the Lutheral Church ever took a stand on contraception. In 1923 when it came up, they took no stand. In 1931, again they took no stand and are still studying the issue today with no firm stand. However I have listed their official statement made in 1981 already.

Here is the best link I can find: HERE

However I did find where the ELCA, the liberal Lutheran Church, did make a statement in favor of allowing contraception. Of course they allow everything else as well so I don’t count them at all.

So what am I mis-reading here:

… Lutherans did not grant approval of contraceptive use even when others did in 1931. However… some clerical opinion was opening up to change.

It seems that the church was still calling it sinful, even as other churches were withdrawing their stance against contraception, just as individual clergy in the church are finding language that softens their stance against it.

 

[Old_Scholar]

So what am I mis-reading here:

It seems that the church was still calling it sinful, even as other churches were withdrawing their stance against contraception, just as individual clergy in the church are finding language that softens their stance against it.

**I still can’t find any condemnation of birth control by the Lutheran Church other than what I have already posted. Martin Luther thought the only reason for sex was to procreate but if that was the sure way to procreate, then practice would not be necessary. As far as I can find out, he only condemned the pleasurable part of married sex. However I also believe sex was given by God to marriage as more than a way to procreate. What can you say about those who have tried to get pregnant for years but still are unsuccessful? Is that for pleasure only? Of course not! If a woman, for medical reasons, has to have a hysterectomy and continues to have sex, is that a sin? Again, to call that a sin would be sin itself.

I did find however, that according to Encyclopedia Britannica, the Roman Catholic Church in 1930 approved of the birth control method called “rhythm method.” I have not seen any denial or retraction of that. Avoiding sex at a certain time of the month is no better than other methods of birth control.

My personal belief is that birth control that does not destroy a fertilized egg should be allowed. Once an egg has been fertilized then you have life—not before.

Unlike centuries ago, the number of children a family needed is not as important as it was today. The earth has already been pretty much filled, according to the way God intended it.

I still say life begins at conception and anything that destroys that is murder.**

 

[NotWorthy]

I still can’t find any condemnation of birth control by the Lutheran Church other than what I have already posted. Martin Luther thought the only reason for sex was to procreate but if that was the sure way to procreate, then practice would not be necessary. As far as I can find out, he only condemned the pleasurable part of married sex. However I also believe sex was given by God to marriage as more than a way to procreate. What can you say about those who have tried to get pregnant for years but still are unsuccessful? Is that for pleasure only? Of course not! If a woman, for medical reasons, has to have a hysterectomy and continues to have sex, is that a sin? Again, to call that a sin would be sin itself.

So again, what am I missing here:
… Lutherans did not grant approval of contraceptive use* even when others did in 1931. However… some clerical opinion was opening up to change*.

“Lutherans did not grant approval” certainly sounds like the Lutheran church felt it was sinful, at least to these Catholic ears it does

I did find however, that according to Encyclopedia Britannica, the Roman Catholic Church in 1930 approved of the birth control method called “rhythm method.” I have not seen any denial or retraction of that. Avoiding sex at a certain time of the month is no better than other methods of birth control.

**The Church whole-heartedly approves of the “rhythm method” as she had for, oh, around 2000 years and counting. Why shouldn’t it? God can still allow pro-creation to happen, as numerous Catholics have found out.

Our priest tells this joke: “**What do you call a couple who practice the rhythm method?.. Parents of Twelve!”

My personal belief is that birth control that does not destroy a fertilized egg should be allowed. Once an egg has been fertilized then you have life—not before.

Unlike centuries ago, the number of children a family needed is not as important as it was today. The earth has already been pretty much filled, according to the way God intended it.

Where does it say this in the Bible?!? That God wants us to be fruitful and multiply until the earth reaches its quota. You sound like you’ve been infected a little bit by “The Greenies” out there, brother!

To say that God wants us to back off on this baby-making thing is, in my view, to repeat the roles of Abraham and Sarah. They heard God’s Words and twisted them around because they couldn’t see the prophecies being fulfilled.

In the same way, we hear God’s commands but we are twisting them because we can’t see how the earth can survive with so many people. The only reason we can’t feed the entire population right now is a question of logistics (and interference in logistics), not production.

I still say life begins at conception and anything that destroys that is murder.

Good for you. But to interfere with God’s intended result of certain actions doesn’t lead to a healthy Spiritual Life.

 

[Old_Scholar]

So again, what am I missing here:
… Lutherans did not grant approval of contraceptive use* even when others did in 1931. However… some clerical opinion was opening up to change*.

“Lutherans did not grant approval” certainly sounds like the Lutheran church felt it was sinful, at least to these Catholic ears it does
**The Church whole-heartedly approves of the “rhythm method” as she had for, oh, around 2000 years and counting. Why shouldn’t it? God can still allow pro-creation to happen, as numerous Catholics have found out.

Our priest tells this joke: “**What do you call a couple who practice the rhythm method?.. Parents of Twelve!”

Where does it say this in the Bible?!? That God wants us to be fruitful and multiply until the earth reaches its quota. You sound like you’ve been infected a little bit by “The Greenies” out there, brother!

To say that God wants us to back off on this baby-making thing is, in my view, to repeat the roles of Abraham and Sarah. They heard God’s Words and twisted them around because they couldn’t see the prophecies being fulfilled.

In the same way, we hear God’s commands but we are twisting them because we can’t see how the earth can survive with so many people. The only reason we can’t feed the entire population right now is a question of logistics (and interference in logistics), not production.

Good for you. But to interfere with God’s intended result of certain actions doesn’t lead to a healthy Spiritual Life.

So you believe that people should continue having children as long as it is physically possible, even though they may have 10 or 12 already and even when they can’t afford to feed them?

Incidentally, the rhythm method is still a ‘method of birth control’ and I don’t understand why the RCC would endorse one method and not another.

 

[NotWorthy]

So you believe that people should continue having children as long as it is physically possible, even though they may have 10 or 12 already and even when they can’t afford to feed them?You know, it’s this type of leading question that has led millions to accept abortion, OS.

But to your question - What happened to faith in the Lord to provide? What ever happened to “keeping it in your pants” until you do have the means to provide? You shouldn’t be doing that until you can anyway.

Incidentally, the rhythm method is still a ‘method of birth control’ and I don’t understand why the RCC would endorse one method and not another.

Well, one is natural, one is un-natural. With the rhythm method, as I’ve indicated, God’s work can still be done in us.

Do you equate two people timing their intimacy to a synthetic piece of latex in an effort to thwart God’s Plan?

 

[Old_Scholar]

You know, it’s this type of leading question that has led millions to accept abortion, OS.

But to your question - What happened to faith in the Lord to provide? What ever happened to “keeping it in your pants” until you do have the means to provide? You shouldn’t be doing that until you can anyway.

But keeping it in your pants is not what God commanded. He said “be fruitful and multiply.”

Well, one is natural, one is un-natural. With the rhythm method, as I’ve indicated, God’s work can still be done in us.

It is still a method of birth control—as is withdrawal…

Do you equate two people timing their intimacy to a synthetic piece of latex in an effort to thwart God’s Plan?

That is still a method of birth control and that would thwart God’s plan, at least, as you are stating it.

 

[Benadam]

So you believe that people should continue having children as long as it is physically possible, even though they may have 10 or 12 already and even when they can’t afford to feed them?

Incidentally, the rhythm method is still a ‘method of birth control’ and I don’t understand why the RCC would endorse one method and not another.

Pardon me if I’m interfering but…
Doesn’t your first statement imply that a child is sometimes a curse.

Sarah would have been still open to God’s participation in the procreative act if the rythm method were being used. The two purposes of the conjugal act are still fulfilled even when the rythm method is used. This is not the intention of other methods.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Pardon me if I’m interfering but…
Doesn’t your first statement imply that a child is sometimes a curse.

Sarah would have been still open to God’s participation in the procreative act if the rythm method were being used. The two purposes of the conjugal act are still fulfilled even when the rythm method is used. This is not the intention of other methods.

The two purposes of the conjugal act is also still fulfilled when other methods of birth control are used. There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.

If you are going to be fruitful and multiply, then do it—don’t think of ways to get around it by suggesting such things as ‘rhythm methods’ and others.

I don’t want to create a wrong impression here. I am in favor of large families. I would have had 10 or 12 kids if I could have. I am already responsible for 26 people. I think people should have children. I am only discussing this subject because it came up. I am not advocating birth control although I have no objection to it if it is done in such a manner as to not kill a human life.

I just think it is odd that the RCC so viciously condemns birth control, yet allows one method.

 

[Benadam]

The two purposes of the conjugal act is also still fulfilled when other methods of birth control are used. There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.

no they all involve a physical barrier with the intention of divorcing one or the other purpose from being fulfilled.

If you are going to be fruitful and multiply, then do it—don’t think of ways to get around it by suggesting such things as ‘rhythm methods’ and others.

 

[Benadam]

Authority from God is eternal, changeless and above all exercised on earth. Authority inherent in the symbols that can effectively express the concepts delivered through divine revelation is lost otherwise.

 

[NotWorthy]

That is still a method of birth control and that would thwart God’s plan, at least, as you are stating it.

Tell that to the millions of expectant mothers who had practiced the rhythm method!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Tell that to the millions of expectant mothers who had practiced the rhythm method!

That’s fine but there were many millions more who used it as birth control.

 

[Benadam]

That’s fine but there were many millions more who used it as birth control.

Old Scholar, isn’t there some value in a method of 'managing birth that effectively leaves an open door to God’s action? Is there really nothing that distinguishes it from method’s that effectively and intentionally close that door?