Blind Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter CheesusPowerKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
April,

I thought, “Sure, we could tell her all about how Catholics think birth control is wrong, but maybe she might listen more to people of her own religious background.” With that in mind, here is a link for you:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9707word.asp

If you would like to know more, either PM me or we could start a new thread on the subject. I had a hard time coming to terms with this one myself (being a “modern” American), but now that I know what the Bible teaches about this I cannot turn away from the truth!

God bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
april_hosen:
Hi Liberian,
You referred to the church as “she” or “her” a lot, I was wondering if there was a reason. Also in your 5th example, I’m not seeing the connection of where the church is right about no birthcontrol. Maybe you could give me an example? Oh and with your last paragraph, I thought the belief that you were truly taking in the body and blood of Christ was more so a mentality thing. Once again thank you so much for your time.
April,

I see a couple of other posters have already answered your questions somewhat.

Speaking objectively, all of Christendom from the first Pentecost until 1930 considered artificial birth control to be sinful. In 1930, the Anglican Church changed its mind, saying that under certain limited circumstances artificial birth control between a husband and a wife might not be sinful. Since then, most (possibly all?) Protestantism has slid down that slippery slope until now they are debating … well, you can see in the newspapers what they are debating now.

Pope Paul VI in his 1967 encyclical Humanae Vitae reviewed the theology behind the statement that artificial birth control is sinful. The gist of it is that the marital relations between a husband and wife are an earthly image of the relationship between Christ and the Church in Heaven. (You were asking why I referred to the Church as “she,” and some other posters answered you already. Well, this is why.) And anything that distorts that image is sinful. There is one Christ and one Church; thus in Christian marriage there is one husband and one wife. Heaven is eternal; thus marriage is lifelong, which is as close as we can get in this world to eternal. It isn’t Christ and Christ or Church and Church; thus homosexual marriage is a non-starter in Christian theology. And finally, nothing that God does is deliberately sterile (see, for example, Isaiah 55:11); thus the act of marriage should not be made deliberately sterile. Hence no artificial birth control. As with the other examples, when I took the trouble to check out the Church’s teachings, I found them to be solid and correct. So I will trust her on the things that I cannot (or do not have time to) check out.

Speaking personally, I was Protestant for the first ten years of my marriage, and so I have seen both sides. And the Catholic way is the correct way.

I’m not sure what you mean by the Real Presence of the Eucharist being “a mentality thing.” Certainly there is no scientific test that can distinguish between a consecrated host and an unconsecrated host. On the other hand, there is a post over on another forum about some police dogs that had been trained to find people indicating that there was a human presence in the tabernacle in a church. Without some verification I would be somewhat skeptical of the story, but this is the sort of thing that I was talking about that bears looking into.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=57667
  • Liberian
 
Regarding the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist, perpetual debate - How come people scoff at the Catholic view on Transubstantiation and yet they firmly hold that we all have a soul?

NotWorthy
 
40.png
april_hosen:
Hi Liberian,
You referred to the church as “she” or “her” a lot, I was wondering if there was a reason. Also in your 5th example, I’m not seeing the connection of where the church is right about no birthcontrol. Maybe you could give me an example? Oh and with your last paragraph, I thought the belief that you were truly taking in the body and blood of Christ was more so a mentality thing. Once again thank you so much for your time.
Here are some excerpts from an article by Fr. John Hardon about Christianity and contraception in the first centuries after Christ’s resurrection:

ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONFATAL.TXT

INFALLIBLY TRUE THAT CONTRACEPTION IS A MORTAL SIN

PAGANS PRACTICED:
  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • Infanticide
  • Cohabitation of one man with either several legal wives, or with a plurality of concubines (polygamy)
In contrast with this moral promiscuity, **Christians practiced
monogamy, one man with one woman; they did not use drugs to prevent conception; they did not kill the newborn children whom they did not want to live; they did not practice sodomy or prostitution; and for the Christian, adultery and fornication were grave sins that might require
several years of penitential expiation.
**
What do we call the Church’s unbroken tradition in forbidding
contraception? We call it her ordinary universal magisterium or teaching authority. This has always been considered a proof of infallibility, or from another perspective, irreversibility.

What do these two terms mean?

**+ Infallibility means that God protects the Church from error in her
2000 years of teaching that contraception is a grave sin against God.
**
**+ Irreversibility means that this teaching will never be reversed.
Contraception will remain a grave sin until the end of time.
**
TO DEFEND CONTRACEPTION FORFEITS THE CATHOLIC FAITH

**As Christianity expanded, the inevitable happened. Once professed Christians lapsed into their former paganism.
**
We read in the first three centuries about the thousands of
**Christians who chose to be thrown to the lions, or beheaded, or crucified–rather than conform to the pagan immorality that was so prevalent in the culture in which they lived.
**
It is possible to misunderstand the Age of Martyrs of the first
three centuries of the Christian era. We are liable to associate
professing the Christian faith by refusing to drop a grain of incense before a statue of one of the pagan gods. No, the issue was much deeper and more serious. To be a Christian meant to refuse to conform to the pagan morality of those who did not believe in Christ. To be a Christian meant to reject the pagan immorality of the contemporary world–at the heart of which was the practice of contraception.
 
Cheesus, does your friend recognize the early Church Fathers?They took the transubstantiation for granted. It was not even questioned until the 6th century. Here are excerpts from an article regarding transubstantiation and the early Fathers:

Source: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

The author of this article wrote "Thus, I decided to research what the Early Christians believed on this issue. I searched the indices for “Eucharist” in many volume sets on Early Christian writings, and I was astonished at my discovery. The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn’t even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D."

**ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: **“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: “Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. **For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” **" First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON: [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON: So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). **No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. **The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. **These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ."
**
 
Found this on the web, thought folks may enjoy:
Code:
             Historical Protestantism and Contraception (and a couple of other                  surprise quotes!) (Excerpted from Protestant author Charles Provan's                  The Bible and Birth Control) A Birth Control Quiz                  1. What Church Synod issued a Bible commentary which stated
            that contraception was the same as abortion? 

              2. What theologian declared in the 1500s that birth control                  was
            the murder of future persons? 

              3. What priest in the 1700s declared that taking "preventative
            measures" was unnatural and would destroy the souls of those                  who practiced it?

              4. Who declared that birth control was sodomy? 

              5. What church group ruled in the 1600s that a church official
            found guilty of birth control was no longer allowed to hold his                  position? 

              6. What well known theologian said, "We do not believe                  in what
            is termed 'birth control'"? 

              If you think that the above statements were made by Roman Catholics,                  then
            your quiz score is "zero." 

             The answers are: 1. The Protestant Synod of Dort; 2. John Calvin;                  3. John
            Wesley; 4. Martin Luther; 5. The Pilgrims; 6. Arthur W. Pink.                  (End quote) 

              Some other surprise quotes:
            Who said this of contraception?
            1) "It is one sin for which the penalty is national death,                  race
            death; a sin for which there is no atonement."
            And
            2) "The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common
            feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity                  as
            perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues                  the
            attainment of pleasure an an aim independent of it."

                           Answers; 1) Theodore Roosevelt, 2) Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud
 
HI,

I cant believe I forgot about of all of those verses making reference to the church the bride. Sorry!
Okay so now I’m going to share with you gyuys beliefs regarding birth control. I promise this is not an attack on Catholics! I think in some relationhips birth control is a good route to go. (I’m talking about in marriage.) For example, my brother and sister-n-law are newlyweds. But they dont want to have kids right now because they know there’d be no way they could support them. So they want to wait five years. Now my brother and sister-n-law are probably going to do what married people do in the bedroom. But probably are going to use birth control. I see nothing wrong with that. But in an instance of a boyfriend girlfriend using birth control. That is shameful in the eyes of the Lord. This probably makes no sense, and I’ll rephrase later. But this is the jest of what believe regarding birth control. Thank you all so much for your time and consideration!

Ps- I am a Baptist and Idont recall my Pastor mentioning anything against birth control. 🙂
 
From Chapter 4 of John:
31
Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.”
32
But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”
33
So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?”
34
Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.

From Chapter 6 of John:

55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

I find myself frustrated in reading discussions like the one that started this thread because it seems that the Eucharist - which should be a source of unity for Christians - has somehow become a source of division for Christians.

The quote from chapter 6 above was part of the readings today. I put the quote from chapter 4 above it to suggest another way to understand what it means to feed on the body and blood of Christ.

In Chapter 6, Jesus says “Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.”

That indicates to me that we should feed on Jesus the way he feeds on the Father. How does he feed on the Father?

" My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work."

My conclusion is that we feed on Jesus, in the most literal, actual, true, and real sense, when we do his will - when we keep his commandments and follow his teachings - when we seek God’s kingdom before we seek anything else.

I attend Catholic Church regularly and am grateful for the opportunity to recieve communion in both forms but I never think that my eternal life is achieved simply from that act. It sometimes seems that non-Catholics believe that Catholics believe that they do achieve eternal life by that act. All of us should clarify that point.

We should focus on what we have in common. As two great late popes have stated “That which divides us as believers in Christ is far less than that which unites us.”

I say “transubstantiation” you say “consubstantiation” really shouldn’t be that big of a difference.

peace

-Jim
 
40.png
april_hosen:
Ps- I am a Baptist and Idont recall my Pastor mentioning anything against birth control. 🙂
To be blunt, using birth control is a pagan practice and today, the churches that do not speak out against it are not in conformity with ancient Christianity.

Natural Family Planning is the only acceptable Christian method of birth spacing. It does not involve taking pills or using barriers of any kind. It just involves refraining from marital relations at certain times of the month.

Birth control pills are what is known as “abortifacient”. That means that while ovulation is usually prevented, it is possible for ovulation to occur and a child to be conceived. When this happens, birth control pills have a back-up function which is to thin the walls of the uterus so that any “accidental” conception would not be able to attach itself to the uterus walls. Instead, this child would be expelled (“aborted”) by the body. Does the Baptist church believe that abortion is wrong? I know some Christian churches do not have an opinion on this.
 
Hey now!

Whats the personal attacks here? The Baptist church I go to is indeed pro-life. But taking the pill ( in my opinion) is something completely different. Are you suggesting that people like in my brother & sister-n-laws case just shouldnt have sex? If you are, I’m sorry thats just not practical. Sex is something meant for married people.
Ps- Once again none of my comments are meant to offend anyone!
 
Are you referring to me? I’m not sure what you mean by personal attacks. :confused:
 
Eden in your opening paragraph.

You said “To be blunt, using birth control is a pagan practice and today, the churches that do not speak out against it are not in conformity with ancient Christianity.” Did I saddly misunderstand you or where you calling the Baptist pagans? If I did misunderstand you many many appologies! But if this is what indeed you meant, then I do see that as a bit of a personal attack.
 
40.png
april_hosen:
Eden in your opening paragraph.

You said “To be blunt, using birth control is a pagan practice and today, the churches that do not speak out against it are not in conformity with ancient Christianity.” Did I saddly misunderstand you or where you calling the Baptist pagans? If I did misunderstand you many many appologies! But if this is what indeed you meant, then I do see that as a bit of a personal attack.
I’m sorry that you felt personally attacked. I really enjoy learning from your posts April! You had asked a member who posted earlier how they knew that the Church was right about birth control. I was stating a fact - since ancient times, Christianity has stood out from societal norms by not using contraceptives which was not true of the larger pagan society. Today, contraceptive use is widely used in our own society but this does not make it O.K. in the eyes of God. I did not say that Baptists are pagans. I am saying, though, that all Christians should be aware that believing that contraceptive use is O.K. is not a part of traditional Christian beliefs. I would think if Baptists were aware of this history, they would not wish to teach against Christian tradition because they are Christians not “pagans”.
 
April,
In the case of the Baptist Church, any form of Contraception other than NFP was considered sinful until the 1930’s (give or take 20 years). This, to me, is a case of the church caving in to the will of the people (Again, we are called to Follow Christ, not the other way around). I’m not bashing the Baptist Church, mind you. I just feel that the sanctity of life is one of the core beliefs of Christians that should not be tampered with. Of course, that’s easy for me to say since we haven’t changed our beliefs.

In regards to your brother in law and sister, what’s wrong with the rythmn method? If your church believes in Sola Scriptura, where do they get the belief that contraception is blessed by God?

Wow, I can sound so sanctimonious sometimes. That’s certainly not the way I intended to sound.

April, good luck and thanks for sharing your views with us. I think the more we understand each other, the more we can find common grounds, rather than concentrating on the (sometimes minor) differences.

I remain NotWorthy
 
My sister and I are both strongly against birth control…we believe that when you are ready for intercourse, it means that you are ready for children because that is what it is meant for. The bond a man and a woman share in marriage is one that is meant for the unity of a family…a family with children. My sister has already met the man she plans to marry, but they have both decided that, because they are not financially or mentally ready for a family, they are postponing their marriage for several years…that way, they won’t need birth control when the time finally comes for them. I am the same way. And even if you are going to use some method of birth control, there are so many other ways of preventing pregnancy other than the pill/patch/etc. (a previous poster has already shown that the pill can also abort any unwanted conception: murder of the child just concieved, even if only for a few seconds) Like someone also already said, there are things like the rhythm method that will help prevent pregnancy.

And in my opinion, if it’s in God’s plan that you’re going to have a child, no amount of birth control is going to stop that:)
In Him,
Britty
 
Hi Eden,

Wow I feel dumb! Sorry I completely misinterperted what you said! I understand your logic now. But personally (this is not any attack against the church! Go church!) I just see that as extreame. If a man and woman love eachother and decide to get married, I think they should be able to do what was God-intended to happen with married people. But if those married people know they need to wait before having children so they can support those children, I think birth control is reasonable. Oh and Britt, I understand what you mean about just waiting untill you get married. But I’ll ttyl about that. Oh I have a question, would you consider condomns birth control?
Ps-(Goodness, I cant believe were talking about this!) :o
Thank you for your time! I’m learning a lot!
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
In regards to your brother in law and sister, what’s wrong with the rythmn method?
Do I need to know what the rythm method is?
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
In regards to your brother in law and sister, what’s wrong with the rythmn method?
Do I need to know what the “rythm method” is? Let me rephrase Should I know what the method is? :o
 
40.png
april_hosen:
Do I need to know what the “rythm method” is? Let me rephrase Should I know what the method is? :o
April,

In its simplest form, the “rhythm method” involves abstaining from marital relations on certain days of the month. In the past it was called “Vatican roulette” by its detractors. Nowadays, however, it is usually called “natural family planning” (NFP) and it is as effective as most artificial birth control methods if it is practiced properly. And NFP works in both directions: if the husband and wife want to have a baby right away, NFP will help them in that direction.

Proper practice involves the wife taking her temperature every morning just before getting out of bed. There are three stages in the menstrual cycle and the wife is fertile only the second stage. The second stage is marked by a distinct rise in her body temperature and it is easily measured. The husband and wife then simply (I make it sound so easy!) abstain from marital relations for a few days around the temperature jump. Most “failures” of NFP come from the husband and wife “failing” to practice the necessary discipline.

Should you know what it is? That depends on whether you are married (or contemplating marriage); for a single woman it’s highly irrelevant. I realize that you are Baptist and that therefore you aren’t bound by the disciplines of the Catholic Church, but I believe that this is a matter of objective morality and so I think that even if you are not Catholic you should be practicing NFP if you are married and are trying to plan your family.

There is a great tendency for people to equate “I do this” with “You should do this too.” I realize that I have just done this in the previous paragraph, and I leave that paragraph intact with great fear, trembling, and hesitation. But I do believe that there are a lot of moral absolutes, and that the practice of artificial birth control is absolutely morally wrong.
  • Liberian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top