G
Genesis315
Guest
Especially since the Church is called the Body of Christ, and last time I checked, Bodies are visible and unified 
- Status
A
astegallrnc
Guest
One of the mechanisms of action of the pill is to thin the endometrial lining. This information is in found several resources including the prescribing information and Merck Manual:
“The endometrium becomes thin”
merck.com/mmpe/sec18/ch255/ch255b.html#sec18-ch255-ch255b-722
From the resources I used when I prescribed:
“Implantation is hampered by the production of a decidualized endometrial bed with exhausted and atrophied glands.” Contracpetive Technology
“The progestin in the combination pill produces an endometrium that is not receptive to ovum implantation, a decidualized bed with exhausted and atrophied glands.” Clinical Gynecologic Endocinology and Infertility
“Alteration in endometrial lining, preventing implantation…”
Managing Contraceptive Pill Patients
HTH!
Autumn
N
noma
Guest
Since the science was poorly developed, it is not surprising that the philosophy was as well.
However, to discuss this, I suggest you start a new thread. I do not plan to.
N
noma
Guest
Oftentimes “plain literal sense” means “my personal interpretation , but I have a lot of people who agree with me, and I don’t really want to question the philosophy behind the words”. It may not, in your case, but this is often what people mean by the statement.
But the plain literal sense of the passage concerning the Gates of Hell would suggest that the gates would be composed of some metal, or combination of metals. I suppose these could be plastic gates.
But, until we can test the gates to find out what composition they are, I will choose to accept that this this passage is not to be taken in a plain literal sense, but rather in that the gates of hell are supposed to represent some concept.
And currently, I contend that the most likely thing “the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church” represents either (a) that the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ, or (b) that there will always be a body of imperfectly believing humans with an perfect teaching authority (Christ) imperfectly understood.
And as such, we would not know with certainty what the definite truth of things are until after we die, or we would know this through the first seven ecumenical councils, and the liturgical practice of the Orthodox Christians.
If (b) is correct, then we have objective speculation. And this is objective. It just may not be complete, and it may be wrong.
Let’s wait on this, but at some time I would be interested in knowing what Church Fathers the Orthodox fail to match, in your opinion. If you list them, I probably will not address them here (unless you think the Protestants agree with the Early Church Fathers to a degree greater than the Orthodox).
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Q: A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn’t…is that true?
A: Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.
The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”
Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?
The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.
If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.
Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation.That tells you what Catholics mean by literal.
N
noma
Guest
You would, instead, take it to those who are likely members of the Church. This would be true, even in a case where the structure of the Church would be primarily visible, for the hierarchy may not in fact believe or teach the Truth of Jesus Christ, but many times are fallen into heresy. As I believe this also does not protect the teachings of the Pope, I am left with bringing conflicts to those who are older and wiser than I, and who I am fairly confident (though not certain) are members of Christ’s body.
N
noma
Guest
Ah. Then I disagree with you about what the literal meaning is. I do not see it as obvious.
But I have told you what I think it means.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
N
noma
Guest
LOL!Yeah, but you live in Mordor where the shadows lie so you’re obviously wrong.
A good point… stupid mordor…
Sorryman.
(Get it? I should be drawn and quartered for that one…)
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Pardon me, but I get the impression you have some real issues here, but what we’re discussing is only tangental to those issues. Why do you have such animosity toward the Papacy? Is there a reason you can articulate?
Perhaps if we discuss the real issues, we can help.
D
DeFide
Guest
So Christ meant to say, “take it to, say, a half dozen people who you think are at least members of the invisible church…”?
Hmmmm. I’ll share a passage from a tract by Joel Peters:
It should also be noted that implicit (perhaps even explicit) in this passage from Matthew is the fact that the “Church” must have been a visible, tangible entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If the Protestant definition of “church” were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to “hear” each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. The only way we can make sense of Our Lord’s statement here is to acknowledge that here was a definite organization, to which an appeal could be made and from which a decisive judgment could be had.
N
noma
Guest
Just to be clear, I have no animosity to the Pope. I liked Pope John Paul II, and I like Pope Ratzinger. They seem like real swell guys.
I have no animosity toward the Papacy as an idea. I think the idea of a single visible and tangible perfect teaching authority ruling over the Church is wonderful. And the more powerful the authority, and the more sure the rule, the better. I pray Christ will return soon, and the Vicar can vacate his chair. He need hold it no longer.
I principally like the idea of there being a definite, visible teaching authority to the Church. I like the idea of bishops.
** The first kicker ** I strongly disagree with the Catholic Church about some of the things it teaches, to the point that I am unwilling to assent to its claimed authority.
** The second kicker ** I disagree with the principle of a sinful human having the powers that the Catholic Church believes the Pope has.
** The third kicker ** from all the verses quoted, and Church Fathers quoted, I find nothing that I would take to mean that the Pope should have the authority claimed.
The real issue is a combination of the first and second kickers. There are some teachings from the Catholic Church that I will never believe, unless Christ would appear to me Himself and made His presence known to me, and then tell me in that vision what to believe.
But this issue is not really debatable. It cannot be fairly challenged (unless you can establish to me that Christ has appeared personally to me).
So we go with the third kicker. And that is what I am trying to discuss here.
I will be happy to talk about kickers one and two, and will be happy to answer any questions posed, to the best of my knowledge and ability.
N
noma
Guest
Ibid.
I did not claim, nor do I believe, that unanimity were necessary. Only likelihood (and this itself may not be the same as majority).
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
With all due respect, I suggest the key question is what you call the first kicker. From your disagreement with certain Church teachings all else flows.
Would you mind telling us which Church doctrines you disagree with?
N
noma
Guest
Not at all. And, if you think it possible to discuss this (I am open to it in principle, but objectivity may be difficult in practice).
First, I disagree with the principle that the Pope (or any human being, for that matter) should be given so much authority as he is.
This has been discussed above.
Second, I disagree with the Immaculate Conception, as I do not accept the Augustinian view of sin. I see the inherited consequences of sin being age, death, sickness, and moral propensity to sin.
I believe Mary had all these things, including a moral propensity to sin, but by the Grace of Her Son Our Lord was able to refrain from actual sin. However, as she has the inherited consequences of sin, she has original sin.
I do not accept that the guilt of original sin is inherited, and so in this sense I would believe every human is immaculately conceived. But this because I think St. Augustine’s language concerning original sin is misleading, especially as it concerns the purity of the Blessed Theotokos (since it lead St. Thomas Aquinas into error concerning just this point, I think it fair to claim that the language is at least potentially misleading).
Thirdly, I have Vatican II issues (I am not sure how fully we should discuss these here, but some examples are the change in language of the Mass, allowance toward ordinary ministers, taking the precious body in the hand, among others). This would likely preclude me from being in any regular Protestant denomination (though I consider the S-word to be virtually a group of Protestants). But even with the Protestants, at least, most would not claim that they are worshiping correctly; but rather just the best that they know how.
Forthly, I disagree with the Church’s teaching on Contraception. I do not find the scriptural references, nor the arguments from natural law to be at all convincing. Though I accept that contraception is typically a grave matter, I think there are some cases in which it is justified (to save the life of a mother, serious financial difficulty, health issues).
Finally, there are older statements in the official teaching of the Church through the Pontiff (though these are not ex cathedra teachings) that I disagree with (i. e. that it is in accord with the will of the Spirit to burn people at the stake, for example, or that women were meant first to take care of the home, and so it would be better that they not have jobs while they have very young children.) It is debatable whether there were any official statement from the Pope about celestial motion. Though these may be considered wrong now, Vatican II states that all things that the Pope declares should be assented to. I will not assent to wrong things.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
But what specific authority do you object to?
Peter was given the keys to the kingdon, the power to loose and bind. That’s in the Gospels. He used that power – most impressively to me when he interpreted his vision at Joppa to set aside the Mosaic laws governing diet and relations with Gentiles. This was a truly revolutionary act by the Pope.
Popes following Peter have used the powers handed down to them sparingly – as I pointed out, the Pope speaks ex cathedra about once every thousand years.
Logically, then you could always tell when someone sinned --they’d look older and sicker. But when we say the wages of sin is death, we mean true death – eternal condemnation.
There clearly is a spiritual component to sin. It is by no means so clear there is a physical component – the guilty often live long, healthy lives.
This position on Original Sin is clearly one you have spent time on, but is it the real problem?
I’m a traditional Catholic and I had a hard time with the vernacular mass, too. But I should point out:
- The earliest masses were conducted in the vernacular – the mass Saint Justin describes (in his First Apology) was in Latin to a Latin-speaking congregation.
- The original celebrants took the host in their hands – because it was a true meal, not a symbolic consumption of a wafer and a sip of wine.
- Justin and others make it clear that it is the consecration of the bread and wine that is the Miracle of the mass.
- People assisted the celebrant in passing out the body and blood during Justin’s time.
I still prefer the Latin mass.
Would I be right to say this is the crux of your dissatisfaction with the Church? The first three issues are essentially academic ones – grist for a philosophical mill, but not touching on you directly.
I think this is a catch-all category – each of these matters is worthy of a fuller discussion, and I suspect that with research you would find out that your impression of the Church’s position is not as accurate as it might be.
M
MariaG
Guest
As you can see from the above post, your understanding of the abotifacient nature of the pill is mistaken.
Although part of the problem is that the “common medical definition” about when a pregnancy begins is at implantation. By deciding that the defintion of pregnacy is after implantation and not at fertilization, one can honestly say that the pill is not abortifacient in nature since the definition of abortion is teminating a pregnancy. In this manner, well meaning people who reasearch their medical treatments and ask questions can be fooled into thinking that the pill they take will not “abort” anything.
Clearly this is at odds with the Church teaching and “common sense” which tells us that life begins at conception and not when the embryo is implanted in the uterus. But by using the "common medical definition, one can aviod the truth that the pill prevents the implantation of life that has already started.
You can even go to the website of different manufacturers of the pill and see that they tell you that the there are changes to the mucus and the uterine lining that prevent implantation if ovulation occurs.
N
noma
Guest
There is no way to know whether this had such authority because he taught it, or rather because it was accepted by the whole of the Church. Since I would argue that Christ taught this clearly to all the disciples, the disciples are not declaring any new teaching, but merely repeating the old (maybe even verbatim, since much of what Christ said and did was not recorded).
Since we have all gained the sickness of the original sin, all of us age and die. Death is both a consequence and a blessing, as it frees us from this life. The spiritual component to sin is the propensity toward more sin, as well as despair. I do not think Our Lady was immune to this, either.
No. (And I decline to respond to the Vatican II defense, mostly because I do not feel charitable enough, nor objective enough, to talk about that.)
The real problem is not contraception, either. Though this is how the real problem entered into my life.
I saw that the Church rejected contraception, but I stated that “since this is not an issue taught by a council, and not an ex-cathedra pronouncement, I need not accept it.” And this because I found it unreasonable. And I would only believe that the Pope in ex-cathedra declarations and the Councils would declare reasonable things. Now, I have no mind if it passes my reason, as many things do. But I do have mind if it, within the realm of my reason, seems at variance with what I know or believe to be the case.
And with this I was emotionally cool. It did not affect me one way or the other, for I felt that the authority of the Church, though heavily abused, was still guided by the Spirit in spite of abuse.
However, during a debate about this with the Third Order of St. Dominic (of which I was a member), one of the other members quoted from Vatican II:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” - (Lumen Gentium, 25)
And from this I came to have great difficulty. The issue became real and emotional to me. I am not willing to submit to the teaching of another human being in this way, that if he ever feels toward declaring something as teaching, I must assent to it. I must submit to it in mind and will.
And this I refuse, most doggedly! No sinful man was meant to have such power over others. I believe this part of the Second Vatican Council to be untrue, totally, completely untrue. This passage screams most soundly against the core of my being, that I would more readily deny the inerrancy of the Scriptures themselves than agree to this!
And once one disbelieves a single “infallible” teaching from an authority, one must question the whole of the authority. And so this I am doing. This makes me a heretic in the sight of the Roman Church (I am not very keen on this fact, either), or a schismatic. I am still not entirely sure which.
N
noma
Guest
Actually, I still believe your understanding is.
“OCs do not adversely affect the outcome of pregnancy when conception occurs during or after their use.” - Merck (ibid.)
Merck, by the way, would hold that “For conception (fertilization), a live sperm must unite with an ovum in a fallopian tube with normally functioning epithelium.” (Merck, merck.com/mmpe/print/sec18/ch258/ch258a.html)
Though the endrometrial epithelium can be made thinner, this has, in no study I have seen, decreased the chances of the survival of the Zygote by any appreciable amount. The most current studies I have found suggest that the effect is only appreciable in emergency contraceptives (RG Edwards, Human Reproduction 1994, and I Sivin, Studies in Family Planning, 1989 [which argues specifically that the pill does not affect implantation], and RB Rosenfield, et Al, Fertility and Sterility, 2005 ). In fact, there is current debate as to whether even emergency contraceptives are abortificant (ME Ortiz, RE Ortiz, et. Al., Human Reproduction, 2004).
Likely most of the quotes you have found (except in Merck), deal with emergency contraceptives, and are likely accurate (though, as I have said, even this is questionable). I am unsure if this is the case, as I do not have the resources you mention handy. Though I would be happy to do further research into your mentioned resources, and as I work at a University, can also ask a gynecology professor what his or her knowledge is in this matter.
Merck does mention the thinning of the wall, but does not seem to imply that there is a negative affect in this change, in terms of implantation.
It is also possible (and a point to your credit) that current oral birth control can cause unwanted mutations in the fetus, should the contraceptive be continued through the pregnancy (and maybe even during early stages).
A
astegallrnc
Guest
No, these quotes are regarding oral contracpetives. I prescribed contraceptives for years and have studied the information and the fact is there is no direct evidence that OCs are abortifacients; however, there is the potential.
You should be able to find the resources.
- Status