Is ABC a mortal sin?

[thistle]

Who decided all this, though? It’s not in the Bible, certainly not in the NT. I find the whole theology shaky.

Very strange you say that because until 1930 The Anglican Church opposed contraception then like many doctrines flip-flopped and now supports it. I would say the shaky theology is Anglican because you can’t seem to make your mind up.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

If it caused you to miscarry I’m sure it would.

But I say sin is sin. Try to stay away from all sin and repent for any committed sin.

 

[Newbie2]

If used with full knowledge and consent, it is a grave matter.

It is grave matter whether or not it is used with full knowledge and consent; the full knowledge and consent make it a mortal sin.

 

[thistle]

It is grave matter whether or not it is used with full knowledge and consent; the full knowledge and consent make it a mortal sin.

 

[Nabooru]

Very strange you say that because until 1930 The Anglican Church opposed contraception then like many doctrines flip-flopped and now supports it. I would say the shaky theology is Anglican because you can’t seem to make your mind up.

The Anglican Communion considers none of its particular members to be infallible. Since we base our beliefs on Biblical foundations, we believe Christ is the head of the catholic (not just Catholic) church, and He will lead us in the right direction. Does that mean that the pervious theologians were wrong in their condemnation of birth control - not just ABC but birth control, so NFP wouldn’t have gone over well with Augustine? We cannot judge that. However, those theologians at the Lambeth Conference who admitted its legitimate use used the Bible
as their foundation.

 

[Moore11]

The Anglican Communion considers none of its particular members to be infallible. Since we base our beliefs on Biblical foundations, we believe Christ is the head of the catholic (not just Catholic) church, and He will lead us in the right direction. Does that mean that the pervious theologians were wrong in their condemnation of birth control - not just ABC but birth control, so NFP wouldn’t have gone over well with Augustine? We cannot judge that. However, those theologians at the Lambeth Conference who admitted its legitimate use used the Bible
as their foundation.

It must be quite convenient that your church changed it’s mind after hundreds of years just in time for you to enjoy a sexual revolution. Many times we like to pick and choose what WE think God wants to fit our libidos. Catholics and serious Christians do not have that luxury. even Anglicans.

 

[Nabooru]

How come the Catholic Church changed its criteria on who gets to go to heaven? For 1,950 years, it’s just Catholics. Now the church has the convoluted idea that somehow mysteriously admits that people can be saved even if they’re not Christian, by being unaware members. It makes me think of Obi-Wan: “What I told you was true, from a certain point of view…” It’s a cop-out.

So how can the church change its doctrine on a much bigger issue?

Anglicans were simply urged to consider the issue and upon Biblical study they confirmed that nowhere in Scripture is there any declaration of ABC as a sin. Up until that point it had simply been assumed it was so, but upon further reflection we were forced to admit that the Bible is silent on the matter.

 

[1ke]

How come the Catholic Church changed its criteria on who gets to go to heaven? For 1,950 years, it’s just Catholics.

This is a false statement.

So how can the church change its doctrine on a much bigger issue?

It has not done so. if you want to discuss this topic, please start a thread on it in the Apologetics section.

 

[Newsy]

Anglicans were simply urged to consider the issue and upon Biblical study they confirmed that nowhere in Scripture is there any declaration of ABC as a sin. Up until that point it had simply been assumed it was so, but upon further reflection we were forced to admit that the Bible is silent on the matter.

Right. It’s back to the “let the Spirit lead you” sort of thinking. Let’s all read the Bible, then come up with our own idea of what it is saying.

Are you really claiming that for 300+ years the Anglican Church was blindly leading its members by an assumption? What else are they “assuming”?

 

[Nabooru]

There was a general movement among Protestants to admit that the prohibition of birth control was not Biblically sanctioned. That doesn’t mean they were previously wrong per we, but that the prohibition was not neccessary. Up until recent times the goal was to have as many children as possible, and this goal was endemic to all cultures. Like with many other things, whoever went against the cultural norm was condemned. With the realization that there is no Biblical prohibition of birth control, the cultural situation started to change.

For thousands of years it was considered immoral for women to cut their hair. It was supposed that this was somehow God’s will, that women should never shorten their hair nor should they allow it to hang loose once they were married. It was a matter of modesty vs. flagrancy, and of course God is always on the side of modesty. So do you condemn women with short hair as godless harlots?

And you didn’t address my question. Was not the change in “no salvation outside the church” a significant departure from traditional doctrine, one that was not held before among the vast majority of theologians? And was it not made for he purpose of making people happy and in the name of political correctness? Don’t say that the previous popes and theologians always thought that - unless you’re going to say that they did and didn’t realize it. Again, Obi-Wan. So why does the Catholic church get to make sweeping changes at Vatican II but the Anglican Communion isn’t allowed to do the same at the Lambeth Conference?

 

[thistle]

The Anglican Communion considers none of its particular members to be infallible. Since we base our beliefs on Biblical foundations, we believe Christ is the head of the catholic (not just Catholic) church, and He will lead us in the right direction. Does that mean that the pervious theologians were wrong in their condemnation of birth control - not just ABC but birth control, so NFP wouldn’t have gone over well with Augustine? We cannot judge that. However, those theologians at the Lambeth Conference who admitted its legitimate use used the Bible
as their foundation.

The Catholic Church has NEVER changed any doctrines. Why is that? Because its the Church established by Christ and given authority by him in matters of faith and morals which means it cannot be wrong in its teachings and its teachings cannot change. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Christ did not establish any Protestant Church. They were established by men and guess what? Protestants change their teachings at a whim from pro-abortionists, those in favour of contraception, gay groups, ordination of women groups. No wonder Anglican priests are leaving the Anglican Church in droves and are being welcomed home into the Catholic Church.

 

[mommamia]

There was a general movement among Protestants to admit that the prohibition of birth control was not Biblically sanctioned. That doesn’t mean they were previously wrong per we, but that the prohibition was not neccessary. Up until recent times the goal was to have as many children as possible, and this goal was endemic to all cultures. Like with many other things, whoever went against the cultural norm was condemned. With the realization that there is no Biblical prohibition of birth control, the cultural situation started to change.

For thousands of years it was considered immoral for women to cut their hair. It was supposed that this was somehow God’s will, that women should never shorten their hair nor should they allow it to hang loose once they were married. It was a matter of modesty vs. flagrancy, and of course God is always on the side of modesty. So do you condemn women with short hair as godless harlots?

And you didn’t address my question. Was not the change in “no salvation outside the church” a significant departure from traditional doctrine, one that was not held before among the vast majority of theologians? And was it not made for he purpose of making people happy and in the name of political correctness? Don’t say that the previous popes and theologians always thought that - unless you’re going to say that they did and didn’t realize it. Again, Obi-Wan. So why does the Catholic church get to make sweeping changes at Vatican II but the Anglican Communion isn’t allowed to do the same at the Lambeth Conference?

Nah, as soon as the Church changes a teaching, that teaching was of course a “discipline”…not a doctrine.

The fact is the Church hasn’t done a very good job of explaining the difference to the members, and has done an even worse job of explaining why some changes are OK, and some are not. IMHO it is a failing on the part of the leaders, and many are led from the Church because of the vanity and pride of those in charge who cannot admit that early Church teachings (pretty much all the same to the laity) have changed as our knowledge has changed.

 

[Nabooru]

The Catholic Church has NEVER changed any doctrines. Why is that? Because its the Church established by Christ and given authority by him in matters of faith and morals which means it cannot be wrong in its teachings and its teachings cannot change. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Christ did not establish any Protestant Church. They were established by men and guess what? Protestants change their teachings at a whim from pro-abortionists, those in favour of contraception, gay groups, ordination of women groups. No wonder Anglican priests are leaving the Anglican Church in droves and are being welcomed home into the Catholic Church.

But Catholic teaching has changed.

And, believe it or not, a great deal of Protestants do not believe in the morality of abortion or homosexuality. That’s because the condemnation of those acts can be found in Scripture.

Not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians.

 

[Nabooru]

Nah, as soon as the Church changes a teaching, that teaching was of course a “discipline”…not a doctrine.

The fact is the Church hasn’t done a very good job of explaining the difference to the members, and has done an even worse job of explaining why some changes are OK, and some are not. IMHO it is a failing on the part of the leaders, and many are led from the Church because of the vanity and pride of those in charge who cannot admit that early Church teachings (pretty much all the same to the laity) have changed as our knowledge has changed.

I personally have no issue with the fact that the Catholic Church has changed some doctrines, such as the salvation issue mentioned above, obligatory fasting and confession (which got shaved down to being necessary only once a year), the declaration that nuns only needed to wear modest clothes and not habits, the mass in the vernacular, the acceptability of slavery and the sin of ursury, etc. I just wish it would admit it. There is no shame in changing doctrine as our understanding of God’s will continues to deepen.

I personally feel at the end of the day that conscience generally trumps all. It seems to me that many Catholics say, “Your conscience should always be paramount, as long as it agrees with the Church.” The church was complicit in the enslavement of non-Christians during the Middle Ages. A clause against slavery was not put into Canon Law until 1917. Renaissance Pope Nicolas V even issued bulls permitting the practice of slavery and colonization. Were Catholics who opposed slavery at that time sinners in the eyes of God for not agreeing with the church?

 

[thistle]

**But Catholic teaching has changed. **

And, believe it or not, a great deal of Protestants do not believe in the morality of abortion or homosexuality. That’s because the condemnation of those acts can be found in Scripture.

Not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians.

Tell me one teaching that has changed.

 

[Nabooru]

I’ve listed several above. You’re either deliberately ignoring them or are using a sort of mental gymnastics to support some kind of belief that going from accepting slavery of non-Christians to condemning all slavery is really the same consistent thing. Or that condemning charging interest is the same thing as later saying hey, if banks do it it’s cool.

Personally I feel at this point the only thing stopping the RCC from admitting ABC is the embarrassment it will suffer if it does. They would have poured millions of dollars and much more hours of effort to smear birth control and its proponents. If it were to permit the use of birth control later, it would be admitting that perhaps earlier it had been mistaken. In the past, this would be quietly ignored - bringing up a previous position would result in a stare and a response of “I don’t know what you’re talking about, we’ve always taught this”, but now the issue has been so thoroughly publicized as to make it impossible to allow ABC without a little admission of error.

I don’t hate the Catholic Church. Not at all. I would so be a member, in an instant, but for this insistence on this issue which I feel is misplaced. I cannot in my conscience, after the obligatory reflection, say that ABC is wrong. I simply cannot convince myself of that, though I have tried. And, even if I were to admit it were a sin, I couldn’t see it as any other than a venial one. There are far worse sins to commit.

 

[1ke]

Was not the change in “no salvation outside the church” a significant departure from traditional doctrine, one that was not held before among the vast majority of theologians? And was it not made for he purpose of making people happy and in the name of political correctness?

No and No and I already suggested you start a new thread, as it is one topic per thread. If you want to talk about this topic, start a thread on Apologetics.

 

[1ke]

Personally I feel at this point the only thing stopping the RCC from admitting ABC is the embarrassment it will suffer if it does.

What is stopping the Church from teaching that contraception is moral is that it is not the truth. Contraception is intrinsically disordered, that is a doctrine that cannot change.

 

[thistle]

I’ve listed several above.** You’re either deliberately ignoring them or are using a sort of mental gymnastics to support some kind of belief that going from accepting slavery of non-Christians to condemning all slavery is really the same consistent thing. Or that condemning charging interest is the same thing as later saying hey, if banks do it it’s cool.**

Personally I feel at this point the only thing stopping the RCC from admitting ABC is the embarrassment it will suffer if it does. They would have poured millions of dollars and much more hours of effort to smear birth control and its proponents. If it were to permit the use of birth control later, it would be admitting that perhaps earlier it had been mistaken. In the past, this would be quietly ignored - bringing up a previous position would result in a stare and a response of “I don’t know what you’re talking about, we’ve always taught this”, but now the issue has been so thoroughly publicized as to make it impossible to allow ABC without a little admission of error.

I don’t hate the Catholic Church. Not at all. I would so be a member, in an instant, but for this insistence on this issue which I feel is misplaced. I cannot in my conscience, after the obligatory reflection, say that ABC is wrong. I simply cannot convince myself of that, though I have tried. And, even if I were to admit it were a sin, I couldn’t see it as any other than a venial one. There are far worse sins to commit.

Oh really. You know that Catholics are bound to believe Church doctrine upon pain of mortal sin.
Show me the Church documents (past and present) on slavery and usury that teach opposites from the past teachings.

 

[thistle]

Re my above post I have been reminded that it is off topic. If you want to discuss these topics (slavery and usury) you can start a new thread in which I will participate.