Authority of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter ladylinguist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, I guess OS is going to use the tactic of just totally ignoring the extensive refutation posts I invested my time in.

Just in case though. Here’s where it begins again.
Re: Authority of the Church
 
I’ll look into more specific info, but it seems some people on a Lutheran forum have the same thoughts as I do on this matter. When asked a similar question, his reply was:
I dont believe the church 'acquiesed on anything. Find contraception for me in Scripture…
 
I dont believe the church 'acquiesed on anything. Find contraception for me in Scripture…
Genesis 38

[8] Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”
[9] But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
[10] And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, along with all other protestant sects, taught that contraception was wrong prior to 1931. The Missouri Synod held out on changing its official position on contraception until 1981, well after most other protestant sects. In 1981, the Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations argued that although “Be fruitful” is “both a command and a mandate,” “in the absence of Scriptural prohibition” contraception was acceptable “within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful.” And if contraception is acceptable, “we will also recognize that sterilization may under some circumstances be an acceptable form of contraception.”

It’s a good thing the Catholic Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit which keeps her from making such errors on faith and morals.

Old Scholar, if he holds true to form, will ignore this post and move on to his next slander against the Catholic Church.
 
I dont believe the church 'acquiesed on anything. Find contraception for me in Scripture…
cut and paste from here.

Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 - from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile”) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.

Gen. 28:3 - Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.

Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.

Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.

Deut. 25:7-10 - the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.

Gen. 38:9 - also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,” which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.

Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 - God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God’s plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.

Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity - and other religions - until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).

Lev. 21:17,20 - crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.

Deut. 23:1 - whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God’s Revelation, but the moral and natural law.

Deut. 25:11-12 - there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.

1 Chron. 25:5 - God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring “not your will God, but my will be done.”

Psalm 127:3-5 - children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God’s precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.

Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 - God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.

Mal. 2:14 - marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.

Mal. 2:15 - What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God’s will. With contraception, a couple declares, “God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no.” Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.

Matt. 19:5-6 - Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.

Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 - contraception prevents God’s ability to “join” together. Just as Christ’s love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife’s love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.

Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.

Rom.1:26-27 - sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.

1 Cor. 6:19-20 - the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.

1 Cor. 7:5 - this verse supports the practice of natural family planning (“NFP”). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.

Gal. 6:7-8 - God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.

Eph. 5:25 - Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.

Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.

1 Tim. 2:15 - childbearing is considered a “work” through which women may be saved by God’s grace.

Deut. 22:13-21 – these verses also show that God condemns pre-marital intercourse. The living expression of God’s creative love is reserved for a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman.

Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 - these verses mention the word “sorcery.” The Greek word is “pharmakeia” which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.
 
Genesis 38

[8] Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”
[9] But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
[10] And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, along with all other protestant sects, taught that contraception was wrong prior to 1931. The Missouri Synod held out on changing its official position on contraception until 1981, well after most other protestant sects. In 1981, the Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations argued that although “Be fruitful” is “both a command and a mandate,” “in the absence of Scriptural prohibition” contraception was acceptable “within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful.” And if contraception is acceptable, “we will also recognize that sterilization may under some circumstances be an acceptable form of contraception.”

It’s a good thing the Catholic Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit which keeps her from making such errors on faith and morals.

Old Scholar, if he holds true to form, will ignore this post and move on to his next slander against the Catholic Church.
I am still waiting for any Scripture saying that contraception is bad. What you quoted said that what was displeasing in the sight of the Lord was not impregnating the woman, not wasting the semen.

Perhaps you could list the canons of the Lutheral Church that forbade contraception until the date you listed and then the order revoking it as you suggest. Perhaps you are right. If so then you should be able to show it…

But to say the RCC doesn’t ever change is to have your head in the sand. I have listed several changes already in this thread.
 
cut and paste from here.

Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 - from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile”) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.

Gen. 28:3 - Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.

Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.

Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.

Deut. 25:7-10 - the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.

Gen. 38:9 - also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,” which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.

Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 - God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God’s plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.

Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity - and other religions - until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).

Lev. 21:17,20 - crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.

Deut. 23:1 - whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God’s Revelation, but the moral and natural law.

Deut. 25:11-12 - there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.

1 Chron. 25:5 - God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring “not your will God, but my will be done.”

Psalm 127:3-5 - children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God’s precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.

Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 - God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.

Mal. 2:14 - marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.

Mal. 2:15 - What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God’s will. With contraception, a couple declares, “God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no.” Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.

Matt. 19:5-6 - Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.

Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 - contraception prevents God’s ability to “join” together. Just as Christ’s love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife’s love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.

Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.

Rom.1:26-27 - sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.

1 Cor. 6:19-20 - the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.

1 Cor. 7:5 - this verse supports the practice of natural family planning (“NFP”). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.

Gal. 6:7-8 - God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.

Eph. 5:25 - Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.

Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.

1 Tim. 2:15 - childbearing is considered a “work” through which women may be saved by God’s grace.

Deut. 22:13-21 – these verses also show that God condemns pre-marital intercourse. The living expression of God’s creative love is reserved for a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman.

Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 - these verses mention the word “sorcery.” The Greek word is “pharmakeia” which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.
You can forget the Old Testament Laws. We aren’t under them and the rest of what you posted shows no ban on contraception at all. Be specific—quote Scripture…

Are you saying that the RCC condems absence during a certain time of the month or the withdrawal method?
 
I am still waiting for any Scripture saying that contraception is bad. What you quoted said that what was displeasing in the sight of the Lord was not impregnating the woman, not wasting the semen.

Perhaps you could list the canons of the Lutheral Church that forbade contraception until the date you listed and then the order revoking it as you suggest. Perhaps you are right. If so then you should be able to show it…

But to say the RCC doesn’t ever change is to have your head in the sand. I have listed several changes already in this thread.
Was the Missouri Synod wrong prior to 1981, when they taught contraception was sinful, or are they wrong now?

It seems at some point that they were wrong about the contraception issue.

And you accuse the Catholic Church of changing its positions… pot, meet kettle.
 
I belong to the church Christ Himself established…
So I am assuming that you can trace the apostolic succession straight to your bishop today from the Apostles? That is a good sign that you actually belong to the church that Jesus established, and not just claiming it because it makes you feel good about your church.

Like they say, either put up or shut up. 😃

Here is my list:

First and Second Centuries
Code:
      o St. Peter    (42 - 67)
      o St. Linus    (67 - 79)
      o St. Anacletus    (79 - 92)
      o St. Clement I    (92 - 101)
      o St. Evaristus    (101 - 105)
      o St. Alexander I    (105 - 115)
      o St. Sixtus I    (115 - 125)
      o St. Telesphorus    (125 - 136)
      o St. Hyginis    (136 - 140)
      o St. Pius I    (140 - 155)
      o St. Anicetus    (155 - 166)
      o St. Soter    (166 - 175)
      o St. Eleutherius    (175 - 189)
      o St. Victor I    (189 - 199)
      o St. Zephyrinus    (199 - 217)
Third and Fourth Centuries
Code:
      o St. Callistus I    (217 - 222)
      o St. Urban I    (222 - 230)
      o St. Pontian    (230 - 235)
      o St. Anterius    (235 - 236)
      o St. Fabian    (236 - 250)
      o St. Cornelius    (251 - 253)
      o St. Lucius I    (253 - 254)
      o St. Stephen I    (254 - 257)
      o St. Sixtus II    (257 - 258)
      o St. Dionysius    (259 - 268)
      o St. Felix I    (269 - 274)
      o St. Eutychian    (275 - 283)
      o St. Gaius/Caius    (283 - 296)
      o St. Marcellinus    (296 - 304)
      o St. Marcellus I    (308 - 309)
      o St. Eusebius    (309)
      o St. Miltiades    (311 - 314)
      o St. Sylvester I    (314 - 335)
      o St. Mark    (336)
      o St. Julius I    (337 - 352)
      o Liberius    (352 - 366)
      o St. Damasus I    (366 - 384)
      o St. Siricius    (384 - 399)
      o St. Anastasius I    (399 - 401)
Fifth and Sixth Centuries
Code:
      o St. Innocent I    (401 - 417)
      o St. Zosimus    (417 - 418)
      o St. Bonaface I    (418 - 422)
      o St. Celestine I    (422 - 432)
      o St. Sixtus III    (432 - 440)
      o St. Leo I    (440 - 461)
      o St. Hilary    (461 - 468)
      o St. Simplicius    (468 - 483)
      o St. Felix III/II    (483 - 492)
      o St. Gelasius I    (492 - 496)
      o Anastasius II    (496 - 498)
      o St. Symmachus    (498 - 514)
      o St. Hormisdas    (514 - 523)
      o St. John I    (523 - 526)
      o St. Felix IV/III    (526 - 530)
      o Bonaface II    (530 - 532)
      o John II    (533 - 535)
      o St. Agapitus I    (535 - 536)
      o St. Silverius    (536 - 537)
      o Vigilius    (537 - 555)
      o Pelagius I    (556 - 561)
      o John III    (561 - 574)
      o Benedict I    (575 - 579)
      o Pelagius II    (579 - 590)
      o St. Gregory I    (590 - 604)
Seventh and Eighth Centuries
Code:
      o Sabinian    (604 - 606)
      o Bonaface III    (607)
      o St. Bonaface IV    (608 - 615)
      o St. Deusdedit I    (615 - 618)
      o Bonaface V    (619 - 625)
      o Honorius I    (625 - 638)
      o Severinus    (640)
      o John IV    (640 - 642)
      o Theodore I    (642 - 649)
      o St. Martin I    (649 - 655)
      o St. Eugene I    (654 - 657)
      o St. Vitalian    (657 - 672)
      o Deusdedit II    (672 - 676)
      o Donus    (676 - 678)
      o St. Agatho    (678 - 681)
      o St. Leo II    (682 - 683)
      o St. Benedict II    (684 - 685)
      o John V    (685 - 686)
      o Conon    (686 - 687)
      o St. Serius I    (687 - 701)
      o John VI    (701 - 705)
      o John VII    (705 - 707)
      o Sisinnius    (708)
      o Constantine    (708 - 715)
      o St. Gregory II    (715 - 731)
      o St. Gregory III    (731 - 741)
      o St. Zachary    (741 - 752)
      o Stephen (II)    (752)
      o Stephen II/III    (752 - 757)
      o St. Paul I    (757 - 767)
      o Stephen III/IV    (768 - 772)
      o Adrian I    (772 - 795)
      o St. Leo III    (795 - 816)
Ninth and Tenth Centuries
Code:
      o Stephen IV/V    (816 - 817)
      o St. Paschal I    (817 - 824)
      o Eugene II    (824 - 827)
      o Valentine    (827)
      o Gregory IV    (827 - 844)
      o Serius II    (844 - 847)
      o St. Leo IV    (847 - 855)
      o Benedict III    (855 - 858)
      o St. Nicholas I    (858 - 867)
      o Adrian II    (867 - 872)
      o John VIII    (872 - 882)
      o Marinus I    (882 - 884)
      o St. Adrian III    (884 - 885)
      o St. Stephen V/VI    (885 - 891)
      o Formosus    (891 - 896)
      o Bonaface VI    (896)
      o Stephen VI/VII    (896 - 897)
      o Romanus    (897)
      o Theodore II    (897)
      o John IX    (898 - 900)
      o Benedict IV    (900 - 903)
      o Leo V    (903)
      o Sergius III    (904 - 911)
      o Anastasius III    (911 - 913)
      o Lando    (913 - 914)
      o John X    (914 - 928)
      o Leo VI    (928)
      o Stephen VII/VIII    (928 - 931)
      o John XI    (931 - 935)
      o Leo VII    (936 - 939)
      o Stephen VIII/IX    (939 - 942)
      o Marinus II    (942 - 946)
      o Agapitus II    (946 - 955)
      o John XII    (955 - 964)
      o Leo VIII    (963 - 965)
      o Benedict V    (964 - 966)
      o John XIII    (965 - 972)
      o Benedict VI    (973 - 974)
      o Benedict VII    (974 - 983)
      o John XIV    (983 - 984)
      o John XV    (984 - 996)
      o Gregory V    (996 - 999)
      o Silvester II    (999 - 1003)
Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
Code:
      o John XVII    (1003)
      o John XVIII    (1004 - 1009)
      o Sergius IV    (1009 - 1012)
      o Benedict VIII    (1012 - 1024)
      o John XIX    (1024 - 1032)
      o Benedict IX (1)    (1032 - 1044)
      o Silvester III    (1045)
      o Benedict IX (2)    (1045)
      o Gregory VI    (1045 - 1046)
      o Clement II    (1046 - 1047)
      o Benedict IX (3)    (1047 - 1048)
      o Damasus II    (1048)
      o St. Leo IX    (1049 - 1054)
      o Victor II    (1055 - 1057)
      o Stephen IX/X    (1057 - 1058)
      o Nicholas II    (1059 - 1061)
      o Alexander II    (1061 - 1073)
      o St. Gregory VII    (1073 - 1085)
      o Bl. Victor III    (1086 - 1087)
      o Bl. Urban II    (1088 - 1099)
      o Paschal II    (1099 - 1118)
      o Gelasius II    (1118 - 1119)
      o Callistus II    (1119 - 1124)
      o Honorius II    (1124 - 1130)
      o Innocent II    (1130 - 1143)
      o Celestine II    (1143 - 1144)
      o Lucius II    (1144 - 1145)
      o Bl. Eugene III    (1145 - 1153)
      o Anastasius IV    (1153 - 1154)
      o Adrian IV    (1154 - 1159)
      o Alexander III    (1159 - 1181)
      o Lucius III    (1181 - 1185)
      o Urban III    (1185 - 1187)
      o Gregory VIII    (1187)
      o Clement III    (1187 - 1191)
      o Celestine III    (1191 - 1198)
      o Innocent III    (1198 - 1216)
 
(continued)

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
Code:
      o Honorius III    (1216 - 1227)
      o Gregory IX    (1227 - 1241)
      o Celestine IV    (1241)
      o Innocent IV    (1243 - 1254)
      o Alexander IV    (1254 - 1261)
      o Urban IV    (1261 - 1264)
      o Clement IV    (1265 - 1268)
      o Bl. Gregory X    (1271 - 1276)
      o Bl. Innocent V    (1276)
      o Adrian V    (1276)
      o John XXI    (1276 - 1277)
      o Nicholas III    (1277 - 1280)
      o Martin IV    (1281 - 1285)
      o Honorius IV    (1285 - 1287)
      o Nicholas IV    (1288 - 1292)
      o St. Celestine V    (1292)
      o Bonaface VIII    (1292 - 1303)
      o Bl. Benedict XI    (1303 - 1304)
      o Clement V    (1305 - 1314)
      o John XXII    (1316 - 1334)
      o Benedict XII    (1334 - 1342)
      o Clement VI    (1342 - 1352)
      o Innocent VI    (1352 - 1362)
      o Bl. Urban V    (1362 - 1370)
      o Gregory XI    (1370 - 1378)
      o Urban VI    (1378 - 1389)
      o Bonaface XI    (1389 - 1404)
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries
Code:
      o Innocent VII    (1404 - 1406)
      o Gregory XII    (1406 - 1415)
      o Martin V    (1417 - 1431)
      o Eugene IV    (1431 - 1447)
      o Nicholas V    (1447 - 1455)
      o Callistus III    (1455 - 1458)
      o Pius II    (1458 - 1464)
      o Paul II    (1464 - 1471)
      o Sixtus IV    (1471 - 1484)
      o Innocent VIII    (1484 - 1492)
      o Alexander VI    (1492 - 1503)
      o Pius III    (1503)
      o Julius II    (1503 - 1513)
      o Leo X    (1513 - 1521)
      o Adrian VI    (1522 - 1523)
      o Clement VII    (1523 - 1534)
      o Paul III    (1534 - 1549)
      o Julius III    (1550 - 1555)
      o Marcellus II    (1555)
      o Paul IV    (1555 - 1559)
      o Pius IV    (1559 - 1565)
      o St. Pius V    (1566 - 1572)
      o Gregory XIII    (1572 - 1585)
      o Sixtus V    (1585 - 1590)
      o Urban VII    (1590)
      o Gregory XIV    (1590 - 1591)
      o Innocent IX    (1591)
      o Clement VIII    (1592 - 1605)
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
Code:
      o Leo XI    (1605)
      o Paul V    (1605 - 1621)
      o Gregory XV    (1621 - 1623)
      o Urban VIII    (1623 - 1644)
      o Innocent X    (1644 - 1655)
      o Alexander VII    (1655 - 1667)
      o Clement IX    (1667 - 1669)
      o Clement X    (1670 - 1676)
      o Bl. Innocent XI    (1676 - 1689)
      o Alexander VIII    (1689 - 1691)
      o Innocent XII    (1691 - 1700)
      o Clement XI    (1700 - 1721)
      o Innocent XIII    (1721 - 1724)
      o Benedict XIII    (1724 - 1730)
      o Clement XII    (1730 - 1740)
      o Benedict XIV    (1740 - 1758)
      o Clement XIII    (1758 - 1769)
      o Clement XIV    (1769 - 1774)
      o Pius VI    (1775 - 1799)
Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty First Centuries
Code:
      o Pius VII    (1800 - 1823)
      o Leo XII    (1823 - 1829)
      o Pius VIII    (1829 - 1830)
      o Gregory XVI    (1831 - 1846)
      o Pius IX    (1846 - 1878)
      o Leo XIII    (1878 - 1903)
      o St. Pius X    (1903 - 1914)
      o Benedict XV    (1914 - 1922)
      o Pius XI    (1922 - 1939)
      o Pius XII    (1939 - 1958)
      o John XXIII    (1958 - 1963)
      o Paul VI    (1963 - 1978)
      o John Paul I    (1978)
      o John Paul II    (1978 - 2005)
      o Benedict XVI    (2005 -       )
 
I dont believe the church 'acquiesed on anything. Find contraception for me in Scripture…
Oop! Oop! You’re changing horses in midstream again! That’s gonna get you very wet, my friend.

You stated emphatically, that the teachings of the Missouri Lutheran church do not change.

Prior to the 1930’s the MLc condemned contraception as sinful. Condemned it.

Now, you are saying, “Find contraception for me in Scripture…”

So you are saying that the church suddenly realized that it wasn’t in Scripture? What else are they going to “discover” about Scripture?
 
Old Scholar and all other posters.

Contraception is not the issue. That’s best for another thread. I simply brought up the issue to demonstrate to OS how his church has changed their teachings on something that was once considered sinful. Something OS claimed never happened in his church.

Why? Because of pressure from the faithful. That is the worst reason to change a teaching.
 
Old Scholar and all other posters.

Contraception is not the issue. That’s best for another thread. I simply brought up the issue to demonstrate to OS how his church has changed their teachings on something that was once considered sinful. Something OS claimed never happened in his church.

Why? Because of pressure from the faithful. That is the worst reason to change a teaching.
You have told me that the church’s position on contraception has changed but you have not shown me any proof of that. Perhaps it has and I don’t know it, but you are the one making the claim so you should be able to show when and how it happened???
 
You have told me that the church’s position on contraception has changed but you have not shown me any proof of that. Perhaps it has and I don’t know it, but you are the one making the claim so you should be able to show when and how it happened???
Is Wikipedia not good enough? Is the testimony of a Lutheran on the Lutheran Forums not good enough? Is the testimony of another on this forums not good enough?

Your church caved in to the whims of the public.

Deal with it.
 
R&S
You wrote:
First and Second Centuries
o St. Peter (42 - 67)
o St. Linus (67 - 79)
o St. Anacletus (79 - 92)
o St. Clement I (92 - 101)
o St. Evaristus (101 - 105)
o St. Alexander I (105 - 115)
o St. Sixtus I (115 - 125)
I am interesated in the early Church and the Apostolic Fathers. I would not be too confident that your list above is correct.
 
Is Wikipedia not good enough? Is the testimony of a Lutheran on the Lutheran Forums not good enough? Is the testimony of another on this forums not good enough?

Your church caved in to the whims of the public.

Deal with it.
That’s the real difference between the RCC and us…If I wanted to listen to what some 'man’ said, then I would be a Roman Catholic. Here is the official Lutheran position on contraception and it hasn’t changed since the days of the Lutheran World Federation—the organization that came after Luther:

Voluntary Contraception

Q. What is the LCMS stance on voluntary contraception?

A. The LCMS does not have an official position on “voluntary contraception” or voluntary childlessness. However, in its 1981 report on Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective (which has been “commended to the Synod for study and guidance”–1983 Res. 3-15), the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations makes the following statement: In view of the Biblical command and the blessing to “be fruitful and multiply,” it is to be expected that marriage will not ordinarily be voluntarily childless. But, in the absence of Scriptural prohibition, there need be no objection to contraception within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful. Moreover, once we grant the appropriateness of contraception, we will also recognize that sterilization may under some circumstances be an acceptable form of contraception. Because of its relatively permanent nature, sterilization is perhaps less desirable than less-far reaching forms of contraception. However, there should be no moral objection to it, especially for couples who already have children and who now seek to devote themselves to the rearing of those children, for those who have been advised by a physician that the birth of another child would be hazardous to the health of the mother, or for those who for reasons of age, physical disability, or illness are not able to care for additional children. Indeed, there may be special circumstances which would persuade a Christian husband and wife that it would be more responsible and helpful to all concerned, under God, not to have children. Whatever the particular circumstances, Christians dare not take lightly decisions in this area of their life together. They should examine their motives thoroughly and honestly and take care lest their decisions be informed by a desire merely to satisfy selfish interests.

With respect to voluntary childlessness in general, we should say that while there may be special reasons which would persuade a Christian husband and wife to limit the size of their family, they should remember at all times how easy it is for them simply to permit their union to turn inward and refuse to take up the task of sharing in God’s creative activity. Certainly Christians will not give as a reason for childlessness the sorry state of the world and the fear of bringing a child into such a world. We are not to forget the natural promise embedded in the fruitfulness of marriage. To bear and rear children can be done, finally, as an act of faith and hope in God who has promised to supply us with all that we “need to support this body and life.”

**You may be listening to the ECLA, the liberal Lutheran Church. There is absolutely no connection with the original Lutheran Church or the LCMS.

Incidentally, you made the claim it has been changed, it is incumbent upon you to prove it. Can’t you do that?**

🙂
 
Old Scholar might want to check out a really interesting blog I found, Lutherans and Procreation - It’s Lutherans who are disgusted at their church’s position on contraception. He should post his question about when they changed over there.

This is from Christ in Your Family:
Thoughts on Christian Marriage and Contraception
, an official publication of LCMS. It endorses sterilization and birth control pills, even if there is a possibility of the pill being an abortifacient.

Even after the Reformation, the Christian church was still heavily influenced by its Roman
Catholic roots, which taught that the Lord’s instruction to “be fruitful and multiply” was primarily God’s
command, rather than a blessing.21
Both the Old and the New Testaments clearly indicate that the Lord blesses marriage and the
procreation of children, but contraception is not explicitly discussed.22 With this in mind, the LCMS
Sanctity of Human Life Committee echoes the statement by the LCMS Commission on Theology and
Church Relations when it stated, “In the absence of Scriptural prohibition, there need be no objection to
contraception within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful.” (Genesis 28:3, Exodus 23:25-26,
Deuteronomy 7:13-14, 1 Samuel 2:28, Psalm 113:9)


This is from another website, has some references to LCMS position on contraception pre-1931:

**The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) also opposed artificial means of birth control. In 1923, in the official LCMS newspaper, The Witness, accused the Birth Control Federation of America of spattering “this country with slime,” and called Margaret Sanger a “she devil.” Tony Gerring, a former member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, quotes Margaret Sanger’s tying of the birth control issue to her desire to undermine Christianity. He notes that in “1927, Concordia Publishing House, the official publishing arm of the Missouri Synod, published the Concordia Cyclopedia, which included this statement in an article on birth control:

The president of the American Birth Control League is Mrs. Margaret Sanger, and she and several of her associates also edit a periodical in the interest of her theories. . . . The Bible very emphatically does not sanction movements of this kind. Ps. 127, 3-5; Ps. 128, 3; 1 Tim. 2, 15; 5, 14, and other passages are in force today as they ever were (p. 84).

Gerring also quotes Walter A. Maier, a professor at the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Concordia Theological Seminary and voice of the Lutheran Hour radio program. Maier specifically addressed the argument made by birth control proponents that the Bible did not speak to issue:

The majority report of the Committee on Birth Control appointed by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America states that the Church and the Bible are “silent upon the subject.” This is a bold statement. When the first human parent pair was created, the divine commandment enjoined: “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 1:28). After the Deluge, when the world was to take its second start, the blessing for Noah and his sons again required them to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 9:1) In Ps. 127:3 we read: “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, And the fruit of the womb is His reward.” The picture of the ideal home is described in Ps. 128:3: “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house, Thy children like olive plants round about thy table.” . . . In spite of extended argument not a single passage can be adduced from Scripture which in any remote way condones birth control; and no one acquainted with the Bible should hesitate to admit that it is a definite departure from the requirements of Scripture. See Gen. 38:9, 10.

Maier added: “Birth Control, as popularly understood today and involving the use of contraceptives, is one of the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a 20th-century renewal of pagan bankruptcy.”**

Quoted from Mere Comments website
 
That’s the real difference between the RCC and us…If I wanted to listen to what some 'man’ said, then I would be a Roman Catholic. Here is the official Lutheran position on contraception and it hasn’t changed since the days of the Lutheran World Federation—the organization that came after Luther:

.snip.

**You may be listening to the ECLA, the liberal Lutheran Church. There is absolutely no connection with the original Lutheran Church or the LCMS.

Incidentally, you made the claim it has been changed, it is incumbent upon you to prove it. Can’t you do that**?

🙂
Yeah, I could cut and paste Mea Culpa’s post if you’d like! 😉
 
OS
You wrote:
That’s the real difference between the RCC and us…If I wanted to listen to what some ‘man’ said, then I would be a Roman Catholic.
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.
NRSV 1 Peter 3:15: but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you;
 
It seems the faithful in the 14th century thought that the Host became His Precious Flesh, and the wine became His Precious Blood.

The problem with this thought pattern is that this Separation of the Body and Blood represents Jesus’ death. The Eucharist is participating in His Life!!! This is evidenced in John chapter 6.

Hence, to show the Faithful that they are receiving His Precious Body and Blood in the Eucharist, even if they are not receiving it from the chalice.

Now, the ban has been lifted for the last 30 or so years. .
Here is what K. Keating has to say about this matter … in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism:

"The implication is that bishops and priests were trying to keep from laymen something they should have by rights. The real situation is not hard to understand. The Catholic postion has always been that after the Consecration the actual Body and Blood of Christ are contained in the smallest particle of the host or the tiniest drop from the cup. One does not receive only the Body in the host and only the Blood from the cup. If that were so, then for a complete Communion one indeed would need to partake of both. But if both the Body and Blood are contained in each, then the communicant needs to receive only one, if there are good reasons for imposing such a restriction.

In 1414 there seemed to be. The first reason was that some people misunderstood the Eucharist and thought it had to be received under both forms because one form contained only Body and the other the Blood. By restricting communicants to the host alone the Church emphasized the true doctrine. The other one was a practical one. In giving the cup to the laity there was a chance the contents would be spilled, so, out of respect, the restriction was imposed."

This explanation does seem bizarre. Why after 1300 + years would the Church suddenly be having communicants who lacked knowledge of John’s teachings ? And, the chance of content spillage is always possible. Why after 1300 yrs did the Church suddenly start having ‘spillage’ concerns?

Was there an outbreak of epilepsy or neuromuscular diseases at that time causing ‘spillages’ in the Church ? Was there a shortage of grapes/wine ? Was the Church short of money to purchase wine ?

And regarding the primary reason for restriction of Cup … why not educate the laity about the Church’s beliefs, rather than restricting the memorial mandated by Christ ?
 
And regarding the primary reason for restriction of Cup … why not educate the laity about the Church’s beliefs, rather than restricting the memorial mandated by Christ ?
Maybe they tried repeatedly?

Also, the Bubonic Plague seemed to coincide with this time. I’ve heard (but I’m not sure how valid it is) that people were afraid to catch the plague through the cup.

If that were the belief, then no amount of education could rid the populace of that fear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top