Is the CCC a rule or a suggestion or?

[Black_Jaque]

My understanding is that the CCC is about as close to having Sacred Tradition written down for us. Sacred Tradition being the companion to Sacred Scripture. So it’s a 10.

Now, the CCC pretty much spells out when and where there is wiggle room, and when the road is narrow.

For example: Contraception vs. Death Penalty.

The CCC states that contraception is intrinsically evil. Because the CCC as a whole rates a 10 that means that contraception is forever and foralways evil, under all circumstances. If you’re opinion differs then you disagree with the Catholic Church.

Regarding the death penalty the CCC is a tad more wishy-washy. Because the death penalty has always been acceptable the CCC can never simply outlaw it. Instead the CCC gets more and more specific about when the D.P. can and can’t be used.

 

[Linnyo]

blessedrosary:

The Catechism is an official document of the Catholic Church. Therefor, since it is OFFICIAL, that means it is 100% infallible in the subject of faith and morality. You must realize that not everything in the Catechism is about those two subjects. The first section is about the creed which is what we believe, so a large portion of that is infallible, while the second is aobut the sacraments, which has some to do with faith. For example the Eucharist being the body blood soul and divinity. But how the celebration of the Eucharist is described in here is not completely infallible. The third section is about our morality of the ten commandments, so anything that says ‘this is either right or wrong’ is completley without a doubt infallible. The fourth section is about prayer, and how to get closer to God through prayer, but everyones relationship with God is different so thats just general inspiration and thoughts of prayer.
Therefore, unlike scripture not EVERY word is inspired. However EVERY word related to morality and Fatih is and is in fact 100% true according to Catholic belief. Anything contrary to this is heresy

I so don’t agree. If it is written by humans then it can not be considered infallible because all humans get it wrong sometimes. I think that it shoud be used as commonsense guidelines and a teaching aid for Catholics to help them live in as Christlike a way as possible.
I would rate it at 7 or 8.

 

[fix]

Linnyo:

I so don’t agree. If it is written by humans then it can not be considered infallible because all humans get it wrong sometimes. I think that it shoud be used as commonsense guidelines and a teaching aid for Catholics to help them live in as Christlike a way as possible.
I would rate it at 7 or 8.

Sorry, but that does not make sense.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Linnyo,

So do you think that you can disagree with the Catechism and still be Catholic?

 

[Linnyo]

Black Jaque:

My understanding is that the CCC is about as close to having Sacred Tradition written down for us. Sacred Tradition being the companion to Sacred Scripture. So it’s a 10.

Now, the CCC pretty much spells out when and where there is wiggle room, and when the road is narrow.

For example: Contraception vs. Death Penalty.

The CCC states that contraception is intrinsically evil. Because the CCC as a whole rates a 10 that means that contraception is forever and foralways evil, under all circumstances. If you’re opinion differs then you disagree with the Catholic Church.

Regarding the death penalty the CCC is a tad more wishy-washy. Because the death penalty has always been acceptable the CCC can never simply outlaw it. Instead the CCC gets more and more specific about when the D.P. can and can’t be used.

These are some of the issues that make me doubt the infallibility of any human or the CCC. I personally don’t use contraception but I don’t see it as being evil whereas the Bible says clearly “Thou shalt not kill.” Is it ok for someone to kill as long as they are not catholic??? Surely that is not right :nope: !
The only reason that condoms are banned is because a pope in his ‘wisdom’ decided that the baby was passed from man to woman and therefore using a condom is abortive. Another pope in his ‘wisdom’ decided that popes were infallible . Slight problem is that no pope can now admit to getting it wrong without upsetting years of teaching. I would have more respect for someone who recognises that they make mistakes because that is all part of being human

 

[Linnyo]

Black Jaque:

Linnyo,

So do you think that you can disagree with the Catechism and still be Catholic?

Yes you can disagree with parts of the catechism and still be catholic, in my opinion. If you disagreed with all of it that would be very different. Eg. disagreeing with policy on condoms vs. disagreeing with statements of belief in Christ.

 

[buffalo]

Page through the footnotes and you will see that it is the Bible interpreted by the Magisterium. The footnotes also reference sources of Tradition.

 

[fix]

Linnyo:

Yes you can disagree with parts of the catechism and still be catholic, in my opinion. If you disagreed with all of it that would be very different. Eg. disagreeing with policy on condoms vs. disagreeing with statements of belief in Christ.

The “policy” on condoms is the teaching about contraception which is the constant teaching of the Church which may be known from natural law.

I respectfully ask how one may be a Catholic in good standing, yet reject the authority of the Church Christ founded and speaks through? Where is it taught that we only have to accept some of Christ’s teachings and not others?

 

[thistle]

Linnyo:

Yes you can disagree with parts of the catechism and still be catholic, in my opinion. If you disagreed with all of it that would be very different. Eg. disagreeing with policy on condoms vs. disagreeing with statements of belief in Christ.

In case I’m misunderstanding you I’m sorry but it sounds like you are saying its not okay to disagree with statements of belief in Christ but it is okay to disagree with the Church’s position on contraception. If that’s what you are saying then you are wrong. All Catholics must accept ALL the teachings of the Church and that includes its teaching on contraception.

 

[Linnyo]

fix:

The “policy” on condoms is the teaching about contraception which is the constant teaching of the Church which may be known from natural law.

I respectfully ask how one may be a Catholic in good standing, yet reject the authority of the Church Christ founded and speaks through? Where is it taught that we only have to accept some of Christ’s teachings and not others?

I don’t recall reading anything Jesus ever taught about condoms. It is not his teaching but someone in the churches teachings. It is not a fundemental belief in any case so it shouldn’t affect my standing with God. Esp. since I don’t use contracepion anyway. Rejecting the authority of a church is very different from rejecting the standpoint of one man within the chuch who claims infallibility as a matter of tradition.

 

[fix]

Linnyo:

I don’t recall reading anything Jesus ever taught about condoms.

He did not mention home invasions either, should we conclude they are morally licit? Christ upheld all the moral law and the natural law which includes the proscription regarding contraception.

It is not his teaching but someone in the churches teachings.

No, the Church does not invent natural law or divine law, She is the interpreter and keeper of the teachings.

It is not a fundemental belief in any case so it shouldn’t affect my standing with God. Esp. since I don’t use contracepion anyway.

I cannot judge your relationship with God as it is not my place. I do know that His Church teaches that we are required to accept the authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. There is no room for rejection of that authority. If we reject it then we make ourselves an authority over Christ.

Rejecting the authority of a church is very different from rejecting the standpoint of one man within the chuch who claims infallibility as a matter of tradition.

Christ founded a Church, not a book. He speaks through that Church infallibly. His vicar is the Pope who has the authority to bind and loose. There is no other authority and we each certainly are not such an authority. If we reject the authority he left then what is that saying to Him?

See my point?

 

[Linnyo]

fix:

He did not mention home invasions either, should we conclude they are morally licit? Christ upheld all the moral law and the natural law which includes the proscription regarding contraception.

I really do not understand what you mean. How do you know that Jesus upheld the natural ‘law’ and how do you know that the natural law is the only moral way?

No, the Church does not invent natural law or divine law, She is the interpreter and keeper of the teachings.

I cannot judge your relationship with God as it is not my place. I do know that His Church teaches that we are required to accept the authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. There is no room for rejection of that authority. If we reject it then we make ourselves an authority over Christ.

Christ founded a Church, not a book. He speaks through that Church infallibly. His vicar is the Pope who has the authority to bind and loose. There is no other authority and we each certainly are not such an authority. If we reject the authority he left then what is that saying to Him?

Christ did found a Church but we also have the Bible which is God’s word. It tells us everything necessary for life and I am not convinced that non-abortive contraception undermines the authority of God at all.

See my point?

Apparently not

 

[buffalo]

Linnyo:

I don’t recall reading anything Jesus ever taught about condoms. It is not his teaching but someone in the churches teachings. It is not a fundemental belief in any case so it shouldn’t affect my standing with God. Esp. since I don’t use contracepion anyway. Rejecting the authority of a church is very different from rejecting the standpoint of one man within the chuch who claims infallibility as a matter of tradition.

We will start here:

Contraception
Gn 38:9-10 God killed Onan for spilling seed [see next]
Dt 25:5-10 - penalty for defying Levirate law: not death
Gn 1:27-28 (Gn 9:1, 35:11) - be fruitful and multiply
Ps 127:3-5 - children gift from God, blessed is a full quiver
1Chr 25:5 - God gave 14 sons & 3 daughters to exalt him
1Chr 26:4-5 - God indeed blessed Obededom with 8 sons
Hos 9:10-17 - Israel is punished with childlessness
Ex 23:25-26 - blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness
Lv 21:17-20 - crushed testicles is called a defect & blemish
Dt 23:1 - no one castrated shall enter the assembly
Dt 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to genitals
Rom 1:25-27 - natural function of women = childbearing
1Tim 2:11-15 - women saved through the bearing of children
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias/Saphira slain - withholding part of gift
Gal 6:7 - God is not mocked-accepting pleasure, denying fruit
Mt 21:19, Mk 11:14 - Jesus cursed fruitless fig tree
Gal 5:20, Rv 9:21, 21:8 - Greek pharmakeia = abortifacient potions
1Cor 6:19-20 - body temple of the Holy Spirit, glorify God with body

 

[buffalo]

Then:

THE HISTORY OF CONTRACEPTION TEACHINGS
History further illuminates the Church’s position on this subject. Anthropological studies show that means of artificial birth control existed in antiquity. Medical papyri described various contraceptive methods used in the year 2700 B.C. and in Egypt in the year 1850 B.C. Soranos (98-139 A.D.), a Greek physician from Ephesus, described 17 medically approved methods of contraception. Also at this time, abortion and infanticide were not uncommon practices in the Roman Empire.

The early Christian community upheld the sanctity of marriage, marital love and human life. In the New Testament, the word “pharmakeia” appears, which some scholars link to the birth control issue. “Pharmakeia” denotes the mixing of potions for secretive purposes, and from Soranos and others, evidence exists of artificial birth control potions. Interestingly, “Pharmakeia” is sometimes translated as “sorcery?” in English. In three passages in which “pharmakeia” appears, other sexual sins are also condemned: lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness, orgies “and the like” (e.g. Gal 5:19-21). This evidence highlights that the early Church condemned anything which violated the integrity of marital love.

Further evidence is found in the Didache, also called the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written about the year 80 A.D. This book was the Church’s first manual of morals, liturgical norms and doctrine. In the first section? two ways are proposed: the way of life and the way of death. In following the way of life, the exhorts, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods…” Again, scholars link such phrases as “practice magic” and “use potions” with artificial birth control.

 

[buffalo]

and…

Let the early Father’s speak for themselves
Contraception and Sterilization

Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law.

Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue.

more…

 

[buffalo]

and…

Either Stop Contraception or Destroy the Family

from the article

The Teaching of Christ. The words of God became Man could not be plainer:

• “This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:12).
• “Greater love than this has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13).
• “These things I command you, that you have love for one another.” (John 15:17).
  
  By this, He tells us, shall all men know that we are Christ’s disciples, if we have love for one another.
  
  So literally did the early Christians take Christ’s teaching that this selfless love which they had for one another was the single principal reason for the marvelous conversion of so many pagans to Christianity.
  
  One thing should be added, however, the selfless love of the early Christians was especially manifest in their strong family life.
  
  Do I say strong family life? There was no family life until Christianity began to convert the Roman Empire.
  
  As Christianity took root, not only contraception disappeared among the followers of Christ, but abortion, and divorce, and infanticide.
  
  The verdict of history is absolutely clear. As Christianity, true, honest-to- Christ Christianity takes root among a people, contraception and its allied evils are removed.

more…

 

[Linnyo]

buffalo:

Then:

THE HISTORY OF CONTRACEPTION TEACHINGS
History further illuminates the Church’s position on this subject. Anthropological studies show that means of artificial birth control existed in antiquity. Medical papyri described various contraceptive methods used in the year 2700 B.C. and in Egypt in the year 1850 B.C. Soranos (98-139 A.D.), a Greek physician from Ephesus, described 17 medically approved methods of contraception. Also at this time, abortion and infanticide were not uncommon practices in the Roman Empire.

The early Christian community upheld the sanctity of marriage, marital love and human life. In the New Testament, the word “pharmakeia” appears, which some scholars link to the birth control issue. “Pharmakeia” denotes the mixing of potions for secretive purposes, and from Soranos and others, evidence exists of artificial birth control potions. Interestingly, “Pharmakeia” is sometimes translated as “sorcery?” in English. In three passages in which “pharmakeia” appears, other sexual sins are also condemned: lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness, orgies “and the like” (e.g. Gal 5:19-21). This evidence highlights that the early Church condemned anything which violated the integrity of marital love.

Further evidence is found in the Didache, also called the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written about the year 80 A.D. This book was the Church’s first manual of morals, liturgical norms and doctrine. In the first section? two ways are proposed: the way of life and the way of death. In following the way of life, the exhorts, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods…” Again, scholars link such phrases as “practice magic” and “use potions” with artificial birth control.

Without being cheeky, science has come a long way since these potions were used and the way in which conception occurs is understood far better now. I can understand that certain pills and contraceptives work abortively (if that’s the right word?) but condoms prevent conception in the first place therefore they are not damaging or destroying life. I would not consider that potions would be moral. That isn’t the issue I am questioning. Further to that, I am certainly not suggesting that promiscuity or 'out of marraige ’ relationships should be using contraception.
There are occasions when it would be ill-advised to have intercourse without contraception especially since the Bible says that one should not deprive their spouses of marital relationships. Some people could be sinning regardless of what they do if this is the case. An example is if a woman is on medication and that medicine says pregnancy must be avoided. Should she deny her husband or take risks with her own health. Bear in mind that not all women have a regular cycle so there may not be a safe natural method.

 

[buffalo]

Linnyo:

Without being cheeky, science has come a long way since these potions were used and the way in which conception occurs is understood far better now. I can understand that certain pills and contraceptives work abortively (if that’s the right word?) but condoms prevent conception in the first place therefore they are not damaging or destroying life. I would not consider that potions would be moral. That isn’t the issue I am questioning. Further to that, I am certainly not suggesting that promiscuity or 'out of marraige ’ relationships should be using contraception.
There are occasions when it would be ill-advised to have intercourse without contraception especially since the Bible says that one should not deprive their spouses of marital relationships. Some people could be sinning regardless of what they do if this is the case. An example is if a woman is on medication and that medicine says pregnancy must be avoided. Should she deny her husband or take risks with her own health. Bear in mind that not all women have a regular cycle so there may not be a safe natural method.

Without being cheeky back, you will note that abortion and contraception were treated together back then as you correctly observed that science has come a long way. You may be also surprised to learn that condoms were in existence even back then. There are early illustrations of condoms made of linen and fish intestines 3,000 years ago.

 

[Linnyo]

buffalo:

and…

Let the early Father’s speak for themselves
Contraception and Sterilization

Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law.

Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue.

more…

I think that you need to realise that, in the past, the fathers of the church did not understand how conception occurred. It was thought that the baby(already alive) was passed from the man to the woman. With such an understanding it is very easy to see that contraception is abortive. However, now that we know how babies are conceived, such rules could be updated. After all, condoms do not have the abortive effect that they were originally believed to have.

With regards to the bible readings posted, they had been completely removed from context so I will need to do some reading. I still suspect that they have little to do with cobntraception in the modern sense (ie. not magic potions).

 

[buffalo]

Linnyo:

I think that you need to realise that, in the past, the fathers of the church did not understand how conception occurred. It was thought that the baby(already alive) was passed from the man to the woman. With such an understanding it is very easy to see that contraception is abortive. However, now that we know how babies are conceived, such rules could be updated. After all, condoms do not have the abortive effect that they were originally believed to have.

With regards to the bible readings posted, they had been completely removed from context so I will need to do some reading. I still suspect that they have little to do with cobntraception in the modern sense (ie. not magic potions).

Yes, please do the research. The concept is continuously denounced from the early Church on. The Protestants opened the door in 1930.

There is little difference between spilling your “seed” into a receptacle or on the ground.