Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
stanley123:
I thought that the topic was to give a Scriptural reference which might contradict some aspect of Catholic teaching. I am only referring here to the Scriptural passage in which the Archangel Raphael says that to engage in the marital act you must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. In other words, according to the Archangel, you are not supposed to be trying to avoid having children while having marital relations, isn’t that what the Archangel is saying?
Click to expand...
The archangel is saying that when you actually engage in the marital relations, you are to be open to children. It says nothing against abstaining for a period specifically nor does it say a couple must have marital relations at every moment that is physically possible. There is no word on that one way or the other. It simply deals with the intention when the act is occurring.
I still see no contradiction between Scripture and NFP.
 
40.png
Eden:
The archangel is saying that when you actually engage in the marital relations, you are to be open to children.
Click to expand...
  1. NFP may fail, but so may methods of ABC, and the wife can get pregnant using either method.
  2. What is the purpose of all of these detailed and meticulous calculations made in NFP? Why is anyone keeping records of these thermometric measurements, making these charts, keeping track of cycles and looking at the calendar?
    PS. This is off topic, but just to answer you on this, previously, I wanted to point out that it would be better for Catholics to try to clean up their own house rather than condemn another Church.
    PPS. I think that I am repeating myself here, so to avoid being boring, I will try to withdraw from any more discussion of NFP on this thread.
    Thank you to everyone, for your responses (positive or negative) to my personal interpretation of this Scriptural passage.
 
40.png
stanley123:
Was this always taught in the East, even before the split? I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and they contend it was an innovation.
Click to expand...
Othodox Bp Ware doesn’t have a problem if anyone in Orthodoxy wants to believe in the IC.

Many ECF’s East and West wrote about Mary’s sinnlessness, long before the doctrine was proclaimed
 
stanley123 said:
1. NFP may fail, but so may methods of ABC, and the wife can get pregnant using either method.
2. What is the purpose of all of these detailed and meticulous calculations made in NFP? Why is anyone keeping records of these thermometric measurements, making these charts, keeping track of cycles and looking at the calendar?
PS. This is off topic, but just to answer you on this, previously, I wanted to point out that it would be better for Catholics to try to clean up their own house rather than condemn another Church.
PPS. I think that I am repeating myself here, so to avoid being boring, I will try to withdraw from any more discussion of NFP on this thread.
Thank you to everyone, for your responses (positive or negative) to my personal interpretation of this Scriptural passage.
Click to expand...

NFP is the only form of “birth control” in which one must not have marital relations during fertile times in order to avoid pregnancy. Those using artificial birth control have marital relations during fertile times but conception is blocked by hormones or barriers. This distinguishes NFP from “birth control”.

Secondly, only NFP can be used to chart fertility to conceive life. There is not one form of artificial birth control that can be used both to prevent conception and assist conception. This distinguishes NFP from “birth control”.

In which post on this thread were Catholics condemning other churches? I believe we are discussing whether or not there are any Catholic teachings that contradict Scripture.
 
does rcc regard Mary a bit higher than regular believers?

Luk 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed [is] the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

Luk 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

also, i wonder what happened to the “holy father” topic i had going. for some reason, i think they moved it after my last reply and then suspended the account. weird. :confused:

but the last reply was about the title for your pope “holy father” originating at about 1077 AD according to someone that replied in the thread. i was wondering what the reason was to start using the title at 1077 AD and not before. What would the reason be for people to not use the title before 1077 AD? also if they did not use the title for about 1000 years, wouldn’t the 1000 years be historical support to not use the title for your pope?

someone also said the term was first used for your pope by henry iv or vi, whom they also said had a bad reputation or something.
 
40.png
stanley123:
They can say it contradicts Matthew 25 vs31 to 46. There it is said that the just will go to heaven, while the unjust will go to hell. It is said that there will be a division into two groups, to heaven or to hell. The idea that there was a third group is not mentioned and I have heard them say that the idea of a third group, or the idea of Purgatory was an invention of the priests, and it has no backing from Matthew 25 vs31 to 46: And I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox accept the Catholic teaching on indulgences.
Click to expand...
Mt 25 does not contradict purgatory. All who experience Purgatory will go to heaven. Purgatory is a refining process, a final purgation a soul goes through before entering heaven. An OT and NT passage might help you to understand the process.

Malachi 3:1-2
Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap.

1 Cor 3:

12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because **the Day **will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

Every person will go through this process of purification before they enter heaven. Catholics call this purification/purgation process purgatory. Call it what you want, it will happen.
 
40.png
stanley123:
NFP does not have a Scriptural basis and it contradicts the following:
Tobias 6:17 – “The holy youth Tobias approaches his bride Sara after three days of prayer, not for fleshly lust but only for the love of posterity. Having been instructed by the Archangel Saint Rapheal that to engage in the marital act he must be moved rather for love of children than for lust. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.”
By NFP, the couple is making a systemiatc effort to prevent God from sending a new life. The couple is going out of their way to calculate by a meticulous and organized effort, involving charts, cycles and thermometers, how to have marital relations without getting pregnant with the child. With these calculations, the married couple goes out of its way to avoid children by deliberately avoiding the fertile times and restricting the marriage act exclusively to infertile times.
Click to expand...
The “N” in NFP is natural. There are no gimmicks or anything artificial being introduced. It is cooperating with the cycle God created, not man. If there is a system, it is God’s system not man’s. If there is a restriction, it’s God’s restriction not man’s. God made infertile and fertile times in the woman, not man. By leaving things natural, man is not interfering with God’s design.
 
steve b:
The “N” in NFP is natural. There are no gimmicks or anything artificial being introduced. It is cooperating with the cycle God created, not man. If there is a system, it is God’s system not man’s. If there is a restriction, it’s God’s restriction not man’s. God made infertile and fertile times in the woman, not man. By leaving things natural, man is not interfering with God’s design.
Click to expand...
Amen!

My wife and I used NFP both to avoid and concieve. What a blessing!

We are expecting our first child in August.

Peace
 
If the sole intent of the abstinence is to avoid pregnancy, and the only time the couple practices abstinence is when their charts, calendars, thermometers and observations have given them good reason to beleive the woman cannot conceive, then the INTENT, is solely to avoid pregnancy. If when they do engage in intercourse, they only do it when the charts etc have indicated the woman will not conceive, the INTENT of their intercourse is pleasure, free from the conception of children.

This INTENT, not the abstinence, nor the intercourse, but the INTENT, does appear to be in contrast with the words of the Archangel.

cheddar
 
steve b:
The “N” in NFP is natural. There are no gimmicks or anything artificial being introduced. It is cooperating with the cycle God created, not man. If there is a system, it is God’s system not man’s. If there is a restriction, it’s God’s restriction not man’s. God made infertile and fertile times in the woman, not man. By leaving things natural, man is not interfering with God’s design.
Click to expand...
The N may stand for Natural, but that does not mean nothing has been introduced. Our smarts for outsmarting the system have been introduced. Natural, would be having intercourse…whenever.
This too is against the Church’s teaching. We are instructed to only engage in intercourse with our spouse, to share love and union and to conceive babies. Natural would be giving in to the feeling whenever it came upon us and we had the opportunity to satisfy it.

Natural would not be avoiding intercourse during the times when the woman is most likely to have urges for it. So the “Natural” argument doesn’t really hold a lot of water.

I am not arguing against NFP as a practice. Just the scriptural aspects and the reality of it. It is not truly natural, it is contraception and people often use it with the serious intent to avoid pregnancy.

People are welcome to use it, keep it and love it, but that doesn’t change the basic truths about it.

cheddar
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Amen!

My wife and I used NFP both to avoid and concieve. What a blessing!

We are expecting our first child in August.

Peace
Click to expand...
Congratulations!
We used it for both purposes as well. It is a blessing! But the discussion here is “Is it scriptural”?

cheddar
 
40.png
Eden:
Stanley123- Do you agree that in previous posts you have expressed a desire that the Church change its positon on artificial birth control because most Catholics ignore the teaching anyway? If you agree that this accurately describes your stance on birth control, can you please show me the place in Scripture which supports the idea that “when a teaching is unpopular and commonly abused the Church should conform to the will of the people and change its teaching”?
Click to expand...
Eden,

That is neither here nor there. We are not here to discuss Stanley we are here to discuss Catholic teachings in light of the Scripture. Stanley never suggested the church change its teaching. He accepted the invitation made by the starter of this thread.

Your ad hominem arguments are off topic. (and this is not the only one) Keep whatever he said on another thread, to the other thread, and please address the issues here. Also, it is not pertinent or fruitful to ask others to use the Scripture to support their ideas, when they never claimed their ideas to be Scriptural.

This thread is about the scriptural support for Catholic teachings, not the scriptural support of Stanley’s personal opinions, my choice of religion etc.

cheddar
 
40.png
stanley123:
With both methods, your purpose is to try to avoid having children. In one case you are putting on a hat (condom) and in the other case you are making detailed calcuclations involving charts, cycles, thermometers, and calendars to avoid having children. The purpose is the same in both cases. Also, with either method you can have failure and the wife can get pregnant.
Click to expand...
The purpose in both dieting, and in binging and purging, is to prevent gaining weight. Thus, they are equally advisable (or objectionable).
peace
John
 
I agree Cheddar, this is about Scriptural support. But I have been trying to pin down exactly what Stanley’s personal interpretation of Scripture is. I can’t discuss whether a teaching is against Scripture unless I know exactly what he claims Scripture is against.

He choose not to answer my questions, therefore I can only surmise. But it would appear that he does not believe there is any reason to be abstinent if the reason is to avoid conception. But I am not sure since the questions were never answered by him.

I think you agree,(with what I think Stanley is saying)? That the words of the Archangel mean there is no such thing as abstinence if the intent is to avoid children even for grave reasons?

Is this what you think the Scripture quoted by Stanley is saying?

I ask because I hate to go and state things against something that a person never intended:p That just causes hard feelings and misunderstandings. But I sincerely desire dialogue.

God Bless,
Maria
 
posted by John Ennis
Click to expand...
The purpose in both dieting, and in binging and purging, is to prevent gaining weight. Thus, they are equally advisable (or objectionable).
peace
John
Click to expand...
Excellent point. With dieting one uses self control and denial. With the other, one over indulges and then gets rid of the indulgence.This portrays the position of the Church very well when applied to this topic.

Virtuous continence is moral. Avoiding children for grave reasons is also moral. Doing two things that are moral cannot make the outcome immorral.

Unless the contention is that one cannot choose use a moral means (virutous continence) to avoid having children even for grave reasons because avoiding having children for any reason is immoral and against Scripture.

Maria
 
I went back and read again, (and again and again). In post #99 Stanley does in fact say that he believes the archangel says it is immoral to have marital relations but try to avoid having children for any reason.

My apologies to saying he did not answer the question. I always seem to miss a post when the pages change. My fault and my apologies. (I would edit but it is too late)

So the thrust for Cheddar and stanley if he chooses to come back need to focus on Scripture that shows that it is moral to avoid marital relations in order to avoid conception of Children.

I have to say off hand I don’t know of a Scripture reference.

But I will look.

Maria
 
40.png
MariaG:
So the thrust for Cheddar and stanley if he chooses to come back need to focus on Scripture that shows that it is moral to avoid marital relations in order to avoid conception of Children.

I have to say off hand I don’t know of a Scripture reference.

But I will look.

Maria
Click to expand...
That is not MY take on it (I don’t know about Stanley’s) I do not believe the angel addressed avoiding marital relations. The angel did address having relations with the intent of not being open to children. I do not feel that NFP is always against scripture, but that it can be and often is used in such a way as to contradict this scripture. Many people use NFP with the intention of avoiding pregnancy alltogether. That would be a scriptural misuse, according to this scripture.

Avoiding relations is not the issue, having relations while being spiritually closed to the idea of children is the issue. NFP does not automatically prevent one from being spiritually closed to the idea of children.

We could do some theological twists to say that couples using NFP are open to children 3 weeks a month, and only not open during the time they abstain, but I think, if we are being honest, that is a rickety argument.

I did not present this argument as NFP being unscriptural, because I think that it can be used in such a way as to comply with the scripture, but I also know that in practice it is often used to contradict the intent of openess.

cheddar
 
john ennis:
The purpose in both dieting, and in binging and purging, is to prevent gaining weight. Thus, they are equally advisable (or objectionable).
peace
John
Click to expand...
The point of this thread is not whether NFP is good, better, acceptable, advisable or any other thing, it is only whether or not it is SCRIPTURAL.

I don’t have a problem with NFP, or other types of contraception (not birth control, there is a difference). But according to the angel’s words, intercourse with the intent of avoiding pregnancy is wrong. Used to avoid pregnancy, NFP is unscriptural.

cheddar
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top