Struggling with my Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Noah_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ForeverAdam said:
The majority of the Orthodox Church sees total abstinence as the ideal form of family planning and only allows methods of contraception when couples cannot live up to the ideal. This is a practice lost in Catholicism with the replacement of total abstinence with NFP. We also don’t see a distinction between NFP and barrier methods, because we still believe that every conjugal act has a procreative end that must never be deliberately rejected. This is a belief lost in Catholicism with the innovative idea that NFP is allowed because only conjugal acts present during the woman’s fertile time have a procreative end.

As you can see, the Orthodox position on contraception actually mirrors that of the early Church more than your Church because we still see total abstinence as the ideal form of family planning and still believe and act upon the traditional belief that every conjugal act has a procreative end that must never deliberately be avoided, thus causing us not to make a distinction between NFP and barrier methods.

God bless, Adam
Click to expand...
So … what you are saying is that once an Orthodox couple decides to limit the number of children, then 100% abstinance must be followed for the rest of their married lives ???..

Stated another way; once they decide they do not desire an additional child, they [the Orthodox couple] must remain celebate from that time onward, until death they do part???

If this is what yoiu are saying then this is different than Catholic teaching…

If not, then it is not different…Catholic teaching is precisely that
that every conjugal act has a potential for a procreative end that must never be deliberately rejected … however, biology has a factor [with many vaiables and which are not 100% - naturally] in our ability [humans] to 'procreate…

Mensus cycles, pregnancy, nursing [lactation], and age [pre mensus and post menopausal] are all natural [therefore, a natural part of our creation - God given - human physiological normalities] factors that affect fertility in women…For men, it could be heat/cold which affect sperm counts and viability …

Abstinance during more fertile times with an acknowledgement of the protential for life at all times is being open to the call to procreation that stems from marriage while acknowledging the unitive, wholesome realitiy of sexual intimacy upon the married couple …
 
YADA said:
So … what you are saying is that once an Orthodox couple decides to limit the number of children, then 100% abstinance must be followed for the rest of their married lives ???..

Stated another way; once they decide they do not desire an additional child, they [the Orthodox couple] must remain celebate from that time onward, until death they do part???

I don’t think forever adam is saying this.

If this is what yoiu are saying then this is different than Catholic teaching…

If not, then it is not different…Catholic teaching is precisely that
that every conjugal act has a potential for a procreative end that must never be deliberately rejected … however, biology has a factor [with many vaiables and which are not 100% - naturally] in our ability [humans] to 'procreate…

Mensus cycles, pregnancy, nursing [lactation], and age [pre mensus and post menopausal] are all natural [therefore, a natural part of our creation - God given - human physiological normalities] factors that affect fertility in women…For men, it could be heat/cold [which affect sperm counts and viability …

Abstinance during more fertile times with an acknowledgement of the protential for life at all times is being open to the call to procreation that stems from marriage while acknowledging the unitive, wholesome realitiy of sexual intimacy upon the married couple …
Click to expand...
A woman is “open” all month but more than likely only if she has imbalance or taking hormones or stress causes her cycle to change. She has 3 or 4 very fertile days of which naturally 24 hours prime but this would be a very average woman and not the norm I think. A woman may be taking many diff types of meds that affect her monthly menses. Blood pressure meds diabetic etc. A job can create a lot of stress. Just like a man may be on meds also, and what some men may not know is too tight jeans can cause impotence, or steroids which are in some ahstma meds, hmmmmm seems like we all already take a lot of meds, hopefully not people who are trying to get pregnant.
D.
[/quote]
 
YADA said:
Stated another way; once they decide they do not desire an additional child, they [the Orthodox couple] must remain celebate from that time onward, until death they do part?
Click to expand...
The ideal form of family planning in Orthodoxy is total abstinence. This will never change. You are correct to feel like this is a bit much. It is. However, we must recognize that family planning in any form is a deviation from the perfect Christian marriage that entails the desire to receive in faith as many children that God wills to send the couple. But given our weakness in faith, God allows us to limit our families through total abstinence for either a period of time or for the entirety of the marriage (if done for valid reasons). The Church provides her own additional condescension to this divine allowance when couples aren’t able to practice self-control even while needing to avoid conception. This is where the allowance of non-abortive forms of contraception comes in. This is an exception to the strict standard of the Church and is never meant to replace the norm of family planning, which remains total abstinence.
YADA said:
Abstinance during more fertile times with an acknowledgement of the protential for life at all times is being open to the call to procreation that stems from marriage while acknowledging the unitive, wholesome realitiy of sexual intimacy upon the married couple.
Click to expand...
I’m glad that you acknowledge that the procreative end of the conjugal act exists at all times. This will of God for the conjugal act is revealed in that the man is always fertile and the woman is most inclined to have relations when she is fertile, thus causing her infertile days to have no bearing on God’s will for every conjugal act to be objectively procreative. However, couples who use NFP deliberately reject this natural mechanism of the woman most desiring intercourse when she is fertile, just as users of barrier methods reject the additional mechanism of the woman’s fertile days. In both cases, couples objectively violate nature and deliberately attempt to keep the conjugal act from manifesting its objective procreative end. This is what causes both NFP and barrier methods to be considered as contraception in the Orthodox Church, and thus we don’t make a distinction between the morality of the two practices.

God bless,

Adam
 
The Church thinks post-menopausal sex is okay… wow… why??? I had no idea…
 
FriendLiiFiRe said:
The Church thinks post-menopausal sex is okay… wow… why??? I had no idea…
Click to expand...
As someone else already pointed out both Sara (Old Testament) and Elizabeth (New Testament) became pregnant in what must have been their years of menopause.

Why would the Church forbid it?
 
ForeverAdam said:
The ideal form of family planning in Orthodoxy is total abstinence. This will never change. You are correct to feel like this is a bit much. It is. However, we must recognize that family planning in any form is a deviation from the perfect Christian marriage that entails the desire to receive in faith as many children that God wills to send the couple. But given our weakness in faith, God allows us to limit our families through total abstinence for either a period of time or for the entirety of the marriage (if done for valid reasons). The Church provides her own additional condescension to this divine allowance when couples aren’t able to practice self-control even while needing to avoid conception. This is where the allowance of non-abortive forms of contraception comes in. This is an exception to the strict standard of the Church and is never meant to replace the norm of family planning, which remains total abstinence.

I’m glad that you acknowledge that the procreative end of the conjugal act exists at all times. This will of God for the conjugal act is revealed in that the man is always fertile and the woman is most inclined to have relations when she is fertile, thus causing her infertile days to have no bearing on God’s will for every conjugal act to be objectively procreative. However, couples who use NFP deliberately reject this natural mechanism of the woman most desiring intercourse when she is fertile, just as users of barrier methods reject the additional mechanism of the woman’s fertile days. In both cases, couples objectively violate nature and deliberately attempt to keep the conjugal act from manifesting its objective procreative end. This is what causes both NFP and barrier methods to be considered as contraception in the Orthodox Church, and thus we don’t make a distinction between the morality of the two practices.

God bless,

Adam
Click to expand...
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp
 
you should be able to have faith in your religion so you dont really need to second guess your catholicism
 
FriendLiiFiRe said:
The Church thinks post-menopausal sex is okay… wow… why??? I had no idea…
Click to expand...
The couple is, of course, free to engage in the unitive act, as long as no artificial barrier is put up against the possibility of life.
 
Pope_Noah_I said:
  1. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
Click to expand...
I understand your problem with this. However no Tradition has been changed. The Church still offers Traditional Latin Masses and there has been no Mass change only a Liturgy change. I disagree with the Novus Ordo as do most Catholics. The NO is tacky and irreverent, why would one like it? I would suggest finding a TLM parish near you.

Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri

Institute of Christ the King

I might also add that I am having problems with the Papacy. I continue to doubt whether the early Bishop of Rome had Universal Jurisdiction over the Church.
 
Pope_Noah_I said:
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
  2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

First, Premarital sex is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. I don’t know where you heard what you said you heard…

Second, celibacy, dedicated to God, is a higher calling than marriage. I don’t know where you heard that marriage is higher than consecrated celibacy.

You have been hanging out with the wrong people.
 
holdencaulfield said:
I understand your problem with this. However no Tradition has been changed. The Church still offers Traditional Latin Masses and there has been no Mass change only a Liturgy change.** I disagree with the Novus Ordo as do most Catholics. The NO is tacky and irreverent, why would one like it?** I would suggest finding a TLM parish near you.
Most Catholics disagree with the OF (NO)??? I would say some, BUT MOST???
I prefer the EF (TLM) but to say the OF is TACKY & IRREVERENT, is (IMHP) close to blaspheme! And I’m pretty sure you haven’t attended even a tenth of parishes that have the OF, right?🤷

Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri

Institute of Christ the King

I might also add that I am having problems with the Papacy. I continue to doubt whether the early Bishop of Rome had Universal Jurisdiction over the Church.
Click to expand...
What early bishop of Rome are you in doubt of having had the Jurisdiction over Universal Church and what problems are you having with the Papacy"?

I’ll pray and hope others here will also, that your faith in the One Holy Church will be straitened & believe all Her teachings.
[SIGN]God Bless you![/SIGN]
 
Pope_Noah_I said:
I’m having a struggle within my soul, and you’re accusing me of being a cafeteria Catholic. When my heart screams something, and the Church fathers seem to support it, and then I see that it is not taught anymore in Rome, while it is taught in Orthodoxy, I need an explanation. And you call me a cafeteria Catholic. Thank you, sir.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree you need an explanation. You need the same explanation that Luther needed when he (no doubt seriously struggling within his soul just as you are) was also doubting some Church teachings and practices … which is that Christ promised always to be with His Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against her, and promised to guide her into all truth through the Apostles and their successors.
 
Like said:
What early bishop of Rome are you in doubt of having had the Jurisdiction over Universal Church and what problems are you having with the Papacy"?
Click to expand...
Well I am just having trouble finding one. Could you please help. :o
 
holdencaulfield said:
I mean with the Biblical Church. aka pre 325 AD
Click to expand...
holden, I don’t know your age, but if you’re old enough, do remember when Pope John Paul II died? Newscasters from all over the world, repeated, many times a day “… and he was the 263rd successor of St. Peter.” Secular newscasters. Does that help? Our Lord appointed Peter as head (universal leader) of His church. That line is unbroken.
 
catharina said:
holden, I don’t know your age, but if you’re old enough, do remember when Pope John Paul II died? Newscasters from all over the world, repeated, many times a day “… and he was the 263rd successor of St. Peter.” Secular newscasters. Does that help? Our Lord appointed Peter as head (universal leader) of His church. That line is unbroken.
Click to expand...
No, thats not my point. Yes I know that Pope John Paul II is the successor of St. Peter, however I don’t know if the early Bishop of Rome had Jurisdiction over the entire Church.
 
dyspepsic said:
The Vicar of Christ on earth is not only the Bishop of Rome, but also the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sorry for your troubles in beliefs. Maybe your adherence to these schismatic sects cause this kind of problem of faith. That is why you are not suppose to join them.
Click to expand...
I have been talking with Orthodox for too long. I will work it out I pray.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top