Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephdaniel29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josephdaniel29 said:
Our teachers do not teach the same thing. For the most part, the Orthodox leave pastoral issues to the pastors, not canonist. That being said, what the Orthodox Church or any other Christian group teaches is not relevant to the OP. 👍
Click to expand...
It’s not relevant to you, but it is for Catholics in communion with Rome. We rely on our Church leaders to guide us in matters of faith and morals. So the guidelines in Humanae Vitae and the CCC guide our actions, and inactions. So trusting the Church and it’s teachings regarding NFP it is very relevent to the OP. This is why you’re having so much trouble with the teaching: because you don’t trust the Magisterium.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Start a thread.
Click to expand...
What should I title the thread?

Orthodox ask for defense of NFP when Orthodox can and are allowed to use NFP.

Tell me what you think will be a bit better for PR sake.

You seem innovative, I am sure you can help me with a thread title.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Originally Posted by StrawberryJam
Without basis from the early fathers?
Click to expand...
Please don’t be rude to StrawberryJam. She actually asked a valid question and therefore doesn’t have to be told to start a new thread. Your bone of contention with NFP is that you claim that it was forbidden by the early Church Fathers…although you haven’t been able to come up with evidence of this notion. However, now you say that the Orthodox also practice NFP if they wish. This means that the teaching had to come from the early Church Fathers, since you don’t trust the teachings of the Church prior to the Great Schism. So…how can it be that those who are Orthodox can use NFP if they wish, if it’s against the teachings of the early Fathers?
Click to expand...
 
Rence said:
Please don’t be rude to StrawberryJam. She actually asked a valid question and therefore doesn’t have to be told to start a new thread. Your bone of contention with NFP is that you claim that it was forbidden by the early Church Fathers…although you haven’t been able to come up with evidence of this notion. However, now you say that the Orthodox also practice NFP if they wish. This means that the teaching had to come from the early Church Fathers, since you don’t trust the teachings of the Church prior to the Great Schism. So…how can it be that those who are Orthodox can use NFP if they wish, if it’s against the teachings of the early Fathers?
Click to expand...
No reason to worry,
I don’t rush nor am I in a hurry
to find it all out just right now
I do feel more at ease with the Mass on my knees
than the others, and the sisters and brothers
I’m just about there
It’s nearly a hair and it’s only one little dogma.
I can do this, I think I can do this
 
Rence said:
That’s not an action that interferes with the natural cycle. That’s doing nothing. There are no “steps” involved with abstaining during fertile times.
Click to expand...
Nobody has any issue with abstaining during any time, just as nobody has an issue with not sinning. There is most definitely an issue with specifically having sex with full knowledge the woman is in her infertile cycle, otherwise the Church wouldn’t need to address the issue or attach conditions to it.
 
StrawberryJam said:
My ability to shut my mouth over this is hard to do at this point.

The thread is claiming NFP is an innovation.
The OP opened up a pandora’s box by asking the question, and you all missed it.

😛
Click to expand...
I noticed right away it is a loaded request; it is self-serving and the answer uses circular reasoning. Nevertheless, it is fun to see people attempt to support their positions on issues formed using controversial and/or limited reasoning.
 
Rence said:
If you have a hard time figuring out which statements are infallible and which are not by the references, you need to ask your priest about it.
Click to expand...
I am asking you to show me how you know this. Surely something as definitive as an infallible statement is clearly defined somewhere.
Rence said:
For example, the statements pertaining to the Church’s teachings on birth control are infallible.
Click to expand...
Can you show me an official document which corroborates this?
 
Of course NFP is an “innovation.” It didn’t exist 'til circa 1880 because that’s when science started to understand the mechanics of a woman’s menstrual cycle – the cycle that God created in the first place. Our understanding of a woman’s cycle developed over time, as did the doctrines of the Trinity and the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Development of doctrine is not BAD!

josephdaniel, you’re Orthodox? You are aware, aren’t you, that the Orthodox permit contraception (i.e., condoms) for married couples? The Church, on the other hand, forbids them. I can’t see how you can be okay with condoms but object to NFP – the act of putting on a condom IS a frustration of the process of conception!

Abstaining from sex is a non-action. To frustrate the marital act would be to take an action so that sperm* that has already been ejaculated *cannot reach an egg (condoms, bcp, withdrawl, IUD, etc.). Choosing not to have sex does not frustrate anything, because there are no sperm to frustrate from achieving their purpose.
 
Warrior1979 said:
When fighting, always let your opponent believe they are winning. That type of pride will always ends with their back on the floor seeing little birdies flying around their head.
Click to expand...
I’m glad we agree. 🙂
Already answered, but you’re not listening.
Click to expand...
No, actually, you haven’t not answered it, which is why I’m still asking. If you had answered it, you’d be able to link to the relevant post – which you haven’t.
It should be noted that the above is far more encompassing than what I was discussing…but I’m sure you knew that if you are paying attention.
Click to expand...
Good! More information is never a bad thing. 🙂
 
wanner47 said:
Abstaining from sex is a non-action.
Click to expand...
We know that, and it is simply not relevant to the issue at hand. You’re comparing apples to oranges; i.e., non-action to action. This issue is comparing action to action.

If you want to compare non-action to non-action, that’s fine. Non action for NFP and non action for one believing in ABC has the same result…no marital activity has taken place, and therefore no sin.

The issue is comparing action to action.
To frustrate the marital act would be to take an action so that sperm* that has already been ejaculated *cannot reach an egg (condoms, bcp, withdrawl, IUD, etc.). Choosing not to have sex does not frustrate anything, because there are no sperm to frustrate from achieving their purpose.
Click to expand...
Another action frustrating the marital act is timing activity so that the woman is infertile…at least according to the Church.
 
Warrior1979 said:
Another action frustrating the marital act is timing activity so that the woman is infertile…at least according to the Church.
Click to expand...
This contradicts what you said above. NOT ACTING is by definition a non-action. When a couple mutually chooses to abstain from intercourse, *regardless *of where a woman is in her cycle, it is a non-action. Nothing is being frustrated. Ejaculated sperm is not being prevented from reaching an egg.
 
wanner47 said:
josephdaniel, you’re Orthodox? You are aware, aren’t you, that the Orthodox permit contraception (i.e., condoms) for married couples? The Church, on the other hand, forbids them. I can’t see how you can be okay with condoms but object to NFP – the act of putting on a condom IS a frustration of the process of conception!
Click to expand...
The Holy Orthodox Church addresses the issue between spiritual father and spiritual children–as is according to Holy Tradition. I do not intend to speak for Joseph but he did not say that he is against NFP. I believe he is saying that a spiritual father may use “economia” and counsel a couple to use NFP for certain reasons or even condoms (ie: one of the spouses has AIDS or STD). Each situation is unique.
 
Mickey said:
The Holy Orthodox Church addresses the issue between spiritual father and spiritual children–as is according to Holy Tradition. I do not intend to speak for Joseph but he did not say that he is against NFP. I believe he is saying that a spiritual father may use “economia” and counsel a couple to use NFP for certain reasons or even condoms (ie:one of the spouses has AIDS or STD). Each situation is unique.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, in which case I will certainly offer an apology to josephdaniel, but it seems to me that his argument was that anything that frustrates conception is morally wrong – and it seems to me he was arguing that NFP frustrates conception.

edited to add – for example, in this post, josephdaniel seems to be saying that both NFP and contraception frustrate conception.
 
wanner47 said:
This contradicts what you said above. NOT ACTING is by definition a non-action. When a couple mutually chooses to abstain from intercourse, *regardless *of where a woman is in her cycle, it is a non-action. Nothing is being frustrated. Ejaculated sperm is not being prevented from reaching an egg.
Click to expand...
Is having marital relations when the woman is in the infertile part of cycle a non-action?
 
wanner47 said:
No, having marital relations at any time in a woman’s cycle is an action.
Click to expand...
I’m glad we agree on that, since that is the subject matter which is being discussed: action, not non-action. So there is no reason to discuss an irrelevant subject.

NFP includes both action and non-action, otherwise it is not NFP anymore…it is simply abstinence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top