The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am very sorry, could you please clarify? I feel like I don’t understand you.

Do you think the document is too definite? I maybe used bad wording in the translation here, my English isn’t the best. Or is it ok according to you?
 
Does your church actually teach that any earthly pleasure is sin? And that sexual pleasure within marriage is sin unless you are trying to reproduce?
 
BohemianBrother said:
Do you think the document is too definite? I maybe used bad wording in the translation here, my English isn’t the best. Or is it ok according to you
Click to expand...
No, good post
.

understood it. …the document was very specific , comprhensive, and something i have not seen posted anywhere, ever.

I was not clear if you agree with document. I found it very sad and legalistic. Reminds me of a few monks and priests in early centuries who were a bit put off by sex, even marriage, as the less virtuous of paths.
 
Last edited:
Bad wording on my part certainly… It is not stated that having a pleasure is a sin, but being addicted, or overindulging in a carnal pleasure is. It is not a requirement to be chaste even within a marriage, but a recommendation, that people should try to control themselves and not burn with lust even in marriage.

Sorry for the confusion… and thanks for the correction!! It is sometimes hard to translate directly for me, this is usually not the vocabulary you learn at high school here.

You have to understant the context here, sex and marriage isn’t considered unvirtuous, being single is recommended only for people who have real problems with having relationships. The general atheist culture in the Czech Republic is now moving away from marriage and more into unleashed sexuality just for pleasure and “fun”, and this document is a statement against that.
 
Last edited:
BohemianBrother said:
Bad wording on my part certainly… It is not stated that having a pleasure is a sin, but being addicted, or overindulging in a carnal pleasure is. It is not a requirement to be chaste even within a marriage, but a recommendation, that people should try to control themselves and not burn with lust even in marriage.

Sorry for the confusion… and thanks for the correction!! It is sometimes hard to translate directly for me, this is usually not the vocabulary you learn at high school here.

You have to understant the context here, sex and marriage isn’t considered unvirtuous, being single is recommended only people who have real problems with having relationships. The general atheist culture in the Czech Republic is now moving away from marriage and more into unleashed sexuality just for pleasure and “fun”, and this document is a statement against that.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying . I can believe that it is hard to use words that communicate exactly what you mean. I am trying to learn Spanish and can sympathize!
 
Thanks a lot!!! I enjoy learning from my mistakes. It is very effective. The crushing feeling of my stupid error makes me remember the lesson very well…

I’ve talked to one of the elders educated in pastoral theology today to make sure I really understand what is written in the document. To paraphrase: If you want to have sex but not a baby, you should be able to plan and wait for the right time. If you need to use artificial contraception, you might have a problem with lust “management”. Sex should not the end all be all of a loving relationship, neither is marriage a vent for lust.

Does that sound better? 🙂 Thanks again for the patience.

Have a blessed Sunday everyone!!
 
It is interesting to me that when most people observe a couple having lots of children, they also question the couples “lust management!”
 
Yes, and that is clearly being judgemental. Most people I know who spoke about this have no issue having a little discipline a few days a month, so I would naturally suppose having a lot of kids is a choice, or it could potentially be due to a little irresponsibility. It is not easy nor good to fit various people into neat boxes, but many unkind people do so anyway.
 
Last edited:
Putting people into little boxes is what I feel a Church is doing also when it legislates behavior in situations that are not necessarily sinful in and of themselves. Preventing pregnancy by NFP by only having relations on supposedly safe days to purposefully avoid pregnancy is no different in my mind than using preventative contraception.
 
I understand, but it depends. God made women fertile for just a few days a month and then man came and changed it to none at all. I don’t think having sex every day is a good thing for a relationship. I support moderation, and having a disciplined and responsible sexual life seems like a great tool.

And then all I see around me is people who are unable to maintain a relationship, go around looking only for a one night stand and then using abortion if something goes wrong. Just pushing for more and better contraception won’t cut it, the culture surrounding sexuality is rotten.

I feel like lust and contraception can be likened to gluttony and forced vomiting. If you cannot stay a day without having a lavish feast and then force yourself to vomit, so you don’t have to face the consequences, it doesn’t remove the fact you are overly concerned with food and probably addicted. Moderation is key.

Do you think having too much enjoyment in an ‘earthly pleasure’ can lead someone away from God?

Anyway, I am interested in your views on this 🙂
 
Last edited:
Wannano said:
It is interesting to me that when most people observe a couple having lots of children, they also question the couples “lust management!”
Click to expand...
Lol…so true.

Just read something on St. Catherine, her mother gave birth 20 times!
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Schaff by trying to find 2 Catholics at the time, who agreed with Schaff, really didn’t help Schaff’s case to undo Irenaeus’s point.
Click to expand...
Again, your opinion. And by the way, what was Iranaeus’s point, without being anachronistic?
 
I don’t see it that way. The act is still open to to life/reproduction. And it still happens. Contraception not only prevents it, but essentially produces an abortion in some cases…and it can also cause major health problems for the woman involved.
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Schaff by trying to find 2 Catholics at the time, who agreed with Schaff, really didn’t help Schaff’s case to undo Irenaeus’s point.
Click to expand...
Again, your opinion. And by the way, what was Iranaeus’s point, without being anachronistic?
Click to expand...
🤔 ?

Are you referring to his label Preeminent authority for the Church of Rome?
 
Last edited:
Wannano said:
Putting people into little boxes is what I feel a Church is doing also when it legislates behavior in situations that are not necessarily sinful in and of themselves. Preventing pregnancy by NFP by only having relations on supposedly safe days to purposefully avoid pregnancy is no different in my mind than using preventative contraception.
Click to expand...
NFP is using what is naturally occurring from God. Conception can still happen. There is nothing artificial about it to deliberately prevent , disrupt, or end, conception.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Is contraception the real dividing thing, though? I don’t remember many Catholics saying it is the thing stopping them from uniting with the EO for example… and the issue isn’t that old, and the point that NFP can produce the same bad results is true (I mean “oversexualization” of relationships), while contraception can be used in a way which is barely sinful (like a married couple using it sparingly, to avoid transmiting a STD from one to the other or things like that).

It sometimes seems to me that some catholics bring it up just to show how much worse and miserable protestants are. In the end, there is still a puddle of difference between protestants and catholic but an ocean between us and the world.
 
steve-b said:
40.png
Wannano:
Putting people into little boxes is what I feel a Church is doing also when it legislates behavior in situations that are not necessarily sinful in and of themselves. Preventing pregnancy by NFP by only having relations on supposedly safe days to purposefully avoid pregnancy is no different in my mind than using preventative contraception.
Click to expand...
NFP is using what is naturally occurring from God. Conception can still happen. There is nothing artificial about it to deliberately prevent , disrupt, or end, conception.
Click to expand...
I am not in favor of disrupting or ending conception. With NFP, the intent and attitude is still to be in control by trying to prevent pregnancy. And I am not saying that is wrong.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Are you referring to his label Preeminent authority for the Church of Rome?
Click to expand...
Yes, the text that Schaff said was not easy to interpret and cause of " much discussion".
Click to expand...
No doubt, It was tough for Schaff, a Protestant, to accept the teaching. The fact he said he tried to interpret it differently, but couldn’t , speaks volumes.

Schaff knew

Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle. He knew and was taught by Polycarp, a direct disciple of John. Irenaeus wrote what was passed onto him, till his day, (a.d. 180) going back to Peter and Paul, in Rome, through the succession of bishops from Peter in Rome, (which Irenaeus named). Peter was the bishop of Rome, and Rome as a result, all had to agree with THAT Church on account of it’s preeminent authority.

That understanding of Peter in Rome, ergo the preeminent authority of THAT Church in Rome, didn’t go away with time.

200 yrs later St Ambrose wrote

Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal”
(Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30) [A.D. 389]).

Phillip Schaff (January 1, 1819 – October 20, 1893) would have known THAT quote also, as he would have known the following quotes of the 1st 450 yrs, of the Catholic Church as well What the Early Church Believed: Peter as Pope | Catholic Answers.

and continuing 126 yrs past Schaff

2019, Pope Francis, 266th successor to Peter in Rome.

People can go to their grave arguing against this. I wouldn’t suggest it, but free will has consequences
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top