F
Fitswimmer
Guest
I’d like to declare a moratorium on anyone on this forum suggesting to anyone else that they ought to leave the Church. That’s up to the person, their Confessor and God.
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
What this really amounts to is that you don’t believe in a universal Visible Church. You believe in an invisible “true Church” within the Visible Church, which a gnostic elite of “orthodox” people like yourself can detect.
This is one of the big reasons I didn’t become a Catholic. I realized that I was getting one picture of the Church from my conservative Catholic friends, and seeing something completely different in the local parish. I thought “what’s the point–I might as well stay Episcopalian and have a local parish that conforms to what I think the Church ought to look like even if the national church is a mess.”
Ironically, several more years of being an Episcopalian, including three years in a more liberal parish, have given me a lot more appreciation for the real unity of Catholicism. And it helps that I’m a bit more liberal than I was back then (though not a whole lot–it’s more that I’m really fed up with the whole project of trying to find or create orthodoxy for oneself)!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s not what I see in Pope Benedict at all. It seems to me that a lot of liberal Catholics accuse him of being power-hungry or corrupt or whatever simply because they can’t believe that a man of great intellect and profound spirituality could actually come to opinions that diametrically differ from theirs. And that’s just as unfair and intolerant as anything you see on the right!
Edwin
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
When is pointing out catholic doctrine considered ‘attacking’?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
I second that!
C
Contarini
Guest
Any time you say that someone is wrong, you are attacking them. Particularly when you are not only saying their theology is wrong, but that they don’t belong in the Church!When is pointing out catholic doctrine considered ‘attacking’?
I am not saying that attacking people’s theology is bad. Sometimes it’s necessary. I’m saying that it should be done with care and precision, and with as much courtesy as is possible under the circumstances. We all violate this on the Internet–it’s too easy to sound our mouths off!
Edwin
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Genesis 1:28 was written long before there were any Christians. Rather, it was addressed by Hebrew scribes to the small band of Hebrews caught between the juggernauts of Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and other major forces in the geopolitics of the Ancient Near East, who needed a divine exhortation not to let their numbers slip. That’s no longer the case with a global population of 6.7 billion people (and growing by 80 million per year), who rely for their food, water, transportation, heating, and cooling on a dwindling fossil fuel energy supply.
Petrus
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Your selected passages have nothing to do with artificial contraception, which is the issue under discussion.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
But one of the seven Spiritual Works of Mercy, which we are required to do to be a good Catholic, is to admonish sinners. How can we admonish sinners without saying they are wrong?
Admonish the sinner
Instruct the ignorant
Counsel the doubtful
Comfort the sorrowful
Bear wrongs patiently
Forgive all injuries
Pray for the living and the dead
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
Yes, Genesis was before Christianity-but Paul’s writings were not. They’ve also been used to support the “be fruitful and multiply” command. My point remains the same-context matters, both historical and current.
9
9Choirs
Guest
I second that, yet she has the audacity to point out other posters testy posts.You should try reading your own posts… one after the other. Your arrogance is unchallenged on this forum.
Congratulations you win… or rather, you lose. So sad.
The whole foundation of her argument = I’m a Catholic who denies the authority of the Church, and the knowledge the Church has gathered through tradition, and through intense continuous studies of the Bible.
She denies the Church’s teaching on what constitutes a mortal sin and where the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin (keeping that their intent and knowledge are satisfactory) end up.
New Ulm on the Secular board has the audacity to libel the Holy Catholic Apostle Church and states that in regards to homosexual relations, the Church ‘prefers marriage’ for gay couples. Yes you heard correct.
Her words can be found in the posts below. A new convert to the Catholic faith quickly picks up that the Catholic Church never condones sexual relations, even within the context of a civil union, and that the Church has stood firmly on the fact that legitimate marriages are only one man to woman. With the posts below New Ulm goes from denying Church teachings to redefining what the Church actually teaches. This is not unintentional if you ask me, considering the numerous stickies on this subject and the numerous times such a topic has been gone over. If she wishes to dissent on the Church’s teaching, then so be it, but to intentionally espouse misinformation on what the Church teaches is unnaceptable:
In regards to homosexual relations within a civil marriage, New Ulm said:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3782969&postcount=4
In this case they are now in a legal union, in this case a Civil Union has most of the rights of a legal marriage from the state. I see that the sin of having relations outside of marriage does not apply here. They are in a lifelong, monogamous relationship which is what the Church prefers.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3783166&postcount=9
Only God knows if this is an “abomination” or not.
I seriously question why moderators have allowed her to get away with this.
I second this too, in particular the highlighted part.
**
You have this the wrong way around.** During the growth of the early Church, it was the Gnostics who were the dissidents who believed themselves to have such a superior intellect that they knew more than what the Church taught. The modern dissidents come in the form of those both on the right and the left as demonstrated by the SSPX and Call to Action, and most certainly Spirit Meadow and New Ulm are of this modern Gnostic mindset as they clearly oppose what the Church has declared doctrine. There is wriggle room in areas that the Church has not spoken definitively on. There is no wriggle room in areas that the Church has spoken definitively on. It is this which both Spirit Meadow and New Ulm are rebelling against. It is not hard to see who the neo Gnostics are
Ave Maria
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
The rule against artificial contraception has little to do with the need or lack of need for a larger population, and everything to do with the purpose and meaning of marriage and the marital embrace. You can find out more by looking up Theology of the Body. Christopher West has some videos where he summarizes these teachings of JP2.
The teaching isn’t based on a few isolated bible verses, but on a deep understanding of the purpose of marriage.
C
Contarini
Guest
Didn’t I explicitly say that it is not always wrong to attack people’s ideas?
Edwin
M
MIZER
Guest
From what I have been able to peice together from the later part of this thread, drpmijhess insisted on some Bible verses that tell us directly that artificial contraception is sinful.
Auntie M, offered the following:
Thus, we see this sort of denial of the truth.
drpmijehess,
I hope you will study this issue with as much fervor as you put into denying the truth of the Catholic teaching. There is a great blessing to be had when one chooses to live according to church law and much suffering when one chooses to reject it. I know this is true, I speak from personal experience on this. The more knowledge one has, of course the greater the sin in rejecting the truth but that is the challlange Catholics must face. If you are not willing to face this challange, then again, I must revert back to the OP’s original question and ask you, why do you remain Catholic?
One other thought I hope you will consider is this. Sex is supposed to be an expression of love in marriage. I’m sure you are familiar with Saint Paul’s lecture to the Corinthians about the nature of Love. It is patient, kind and never self seeking.
Contracepted sex is selfish sex. It denies the intrinsic nature of the act itself, in that it denies it’s life giving character. Sex was not designed by God to be something we get from our spouse but rather something we give. It is the gift of self, offered in love.
You want a scripture verse that says contraception is wrong, I would offer you the Bible as a whole. Auntie M did well to put it in a nutshell with Gal 5:14. You wish to deny that this verse is any evidence at all because you won’t give enough thought to the whole picture which surrounds the issue of contraception. You can’t seperate the many teachings on love (married love) from the teachings on sexuality and expect to gain an understanding regarding the teachings on contraception.
The bottom line is, contraceptive love is selfish love. Selfish love is not covenant love. Marriage is a Sacrament. It creates a covenant bond. Married sex is the Sacramental act that renews that covenant between the man and his woman, just like the reception of the Eucharist is the Sacrmental act that renews our covenant with God. We can no more seperate the life giving nature of the Eucharist from our act of eating the flesh of the Son of Man and still consider it a renewal of the covenant anymore than we can seperate the life giving nature of marital sex and expect it to reamain the sacramental act God created it to be.
This is a very short rendition of a very deep concept, one you have yet to begin to explore. I’m asking you, and other’s on this board who share your views, especially you young married (dissenting) couples, to explore this concept and stop denying the truth of church law before you even have an adequate understanding of it. Your willful (and ignorant) dissention is divisive to the body of Christ. You ultimately compound one sin on top of another, on top of another, and you lead other’s to follow you on this track whether you realize it or not. If you won’t do as I’ve suggested and thouroughly educate yourselves on the issues, until…you understand them as the truth which we can trust them to be, because they are taught directly from the living voice of God HIMSELF through HIS one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, then again, the question remains, WHY ARE YOU STILL CATHOLIC?
Auntie M, offered the following:
drpmijehess rejects them all, both individually and together. This is not surprising as the human condition seeks to persist in sin.
Thus, we see this sort of denial of the truth.
drpmijehess,
I hope you will study this issue with as much fervor as you put into denying the truth of the Catholic teaching. There is a great blessing to be had when one chooses to live according to church law and much suffering when one chooses to reject it. I know this is true, I speak from personal experience on this. The more knowledge one has, of course the greater the sin in rejecting the truth but that is the challlange Catholics must face. If you are not willing to face this challange, then again, I must revert back to the OP’s original question and ask you, why do you remain Catholic?
One other thought I hope you will consider is this. Sex is supposed to be an expression of love in marriage. I’m sure you are familiar with Saint Paul’s lecture to the Corinthians about the nature of Love. It is patient, kind and never self seeking.
Contracepted sex is selfish sex. It denies the intrinsic nature of the act itself, in that it denies it’s life giving character. Sex was not designed by God to be something we get from our spouse but rather something we give. It is the gift of self, offered in love.
You want a scripture verse that says contraception is wrong, I would offer you the Bible as a whole. Auntie M did well to put it in a nutshell with Gal 5:14. You wish to deny that this verse is any evidence at all because you won’t give enough thought to the whole picture which surrounds the issue of contraception. You can’t seperate the many teachings on love (married love) from the teachings on sexuality and expect to gain an understanding regarding the teachings on contraception.
The bottom line is, contraceptive love is selfish love. Selfish love is not covenant love. Marriage is a Sacrament. It creates a covenant bond. Married sex is the Sacramental act that renews that covenant between the man and his woman, just like the reception of the Eucharist is the Sacrmental act that renews our covenant with God. We can no more seperate the life giving nature of the Eucharist from our act of eating the flesh of the Son of Man and still consider it a renewal of the covenant anymore than we can seperate the life giving nature of marital sex and expect it to reamain the sacramental act God created it to be.
This is a very short rendition of a very deep concept, one you have yet to begin to explore. I’m asking you, and other’s on this board who share your views, especially you young married (dissenting) couples, to explore this concept and stop denying the truth of church law before you even have an adequate understanding of it. Your willful (and ignorant) dissention is divisive to the body of Christ. You ultimately compound one sin on top of another, on top of another, and you lead other’s to follow you on this track whether you realize it or not. If you won’t do as I’ve suggested and thouroughly educate yourselves on the issues, until…you understand them as the truth which we can trust them to be, because they are taught directly from the living voice of God HIMSELF through HIS one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, then again, the question remains, WHY ARE YOU STILL CATHOLIC?
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. But the fact is that many of them discerned there to be a “true church” within the visible Church. In that sense you self-proclaimed “orthodox” folks are acting like the Gnostics. You think that you can identify who the “real Catholics” are and just hang out with them, ignoring the bulk of your fellow-Catholics whom you consider insufficiently pure.
It is never hard to cast hard names at one’s adversaries. It is hard, but worthwhile, to look in the mirror occasionally.
In Christ,
Edwin
M
MIZER
Guest
M
MIZER
Guest
Sorry, I can’t spell. I meant,
Great post Niel.
Great post Niel.
M
MIZER
Guest
opps, that would be NEIL. Good grief.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Thanks
9
9Choirs
Guest
I’ve never spoken about ‘Orthodox Churches’ and ‘non Orthodox Church’s’. I have however spoken about those who pretty much reject most tenets of the Catholic faith yet call themselves Catholic as being dishonest.
As for who is orthodox or not, we can figure who is by looking at the teachings of the Church (yet New Ulm and Spirit Meadow reject her authority, don’t they?)
Associating with those who try to bring about your spiritual fall is not wise, **in particular when such people persist in spreading their seeds of error amongst those who are trying their hardest to submit to what the Church teaches, and not what their sinful subjective desires are telling them **
Taken on board. I have looked in the mirror and although I’m a mere sinner, neo Gnosticism is certainly something that I’m not guilty of. I have no problem submitting to what the Church teaches and when I struggle with some of her teachings, I don’t intentionally lead others astray to make myself feel better about my shortcomings.
Ave Maria
- Status