Stanek weekend question: Is NFP a form of contraception?
The word “contraception” simply means “anti-conception.”
Its dictionary definition: “Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.”
The Catholic News Agency reported August 23:
The developer of new fertility management software says it is becoming the “new face” for natural family planning. It can assist couples in conceiving or in avoiding pregnancy and help Catholics live their faith….
Novuscor’s FertileView software collects “very specific” information about ovulation and fertility that allows women to understand “exactly what their bodies are doing”…. The program helps women and their husbands structure their actions around their “fertility goals.”…
The software pinpoints a woman’s ovulation and predicts the best time to achieve pregnancy, helping to address fertility issues for both women and men….
Despite Catholic teaching that contraceptive use is sinful, Catholics appear to be contracepting at the same rate as non-Catholics.
Although many people are contracepting, [owner Tim] Boh said, “they’re not all happy about it either.”
“They just don’t think they have another option. They really do, they just don’t know it.”
Weekend question: Is natural family planning just a natural method of contraception?
[HT: LifeNews.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
NFP is, by the dictionary definition, contraception. However, the Church teaches that there are good and moral reasons for “spacing” one’s offspring. NFP requires diligence and cooperation on the part of both spouses, which means that (unlike other forms of unnatural birth control) one partner cannot make unilateral decisions — both spouses have to be aware of fertile periods and agree to abide by them if a couple has decided that the time is not right to have a child.
Also, unlike unnatural birth control, NFP can be used to ACHIEVE pregnancy by helping a sub-fertile couple track fertile periods without the necessity of spending a fortune in ovulation kits and medical procedures.
NFP isn’t the “rhythm method” or “Vatican roulette.” It’s a scientifically proven, totally natural, God-centered way to manage fertility.
NFP can be abused. That is my first caveat. Some people can use it in the way it is not meant to be used. However, even those who use it to avoid pregnancy indefinitely (and for the wrong reasons) are not doing the same thing as those who use artificial contraception. The primary difference is that the NFP couple uses the woman’s naturally infertile periods as a way to space pregnancies. God made it so that a woman is only fertile for a short period every cycle. The NFP couple learns about the woman’s cycle and uses this knowledge to prayerfully decide when to abstain and when to engage in marital intimacy. The couple who uses artificial contraception, on the other hand, treat sex as recreation: there is no sacrifice. They have it when they want it and strip all the procreative faculties from it. There is usually no possibility for life; whereas with NFP, there is. NFP also fosters greater marital intimacy and communication. The woman’s body and the gift of her reproductive cycle are not a mystery to either the husband or the wife. Moreover, sex is never taken for granted. When a couple is abstaining, sex becomes a treat — something the couple anticipates and looks forward to during the week of abstinence. During that week, the couple also needs to foster other ways of intimacy. NFP really is a blessing. I wish more people gave it a chance. (Also, I have several friends who are not even Christian who use it; they’re “organic” hippie types who are attracted to the chemical-free and respectful lifestyle it promotes.)
With the use of NFP to avoid a pregnancy, it can NEVER be a contraceptive act because there simply is no act. Contraception is the intentional rendering of the sexual act sterile. However, if you choose not to enter into the act, there is nothing to act against. Can the couple have a contraceptive mentality when choosing to practice NFP.? Yes. But can NFP ever be a form of contraception? No.
I say NFP is NOT a form of contraception. It comes down to a matter of knowing the physical working of your hormones and your body to be able to determine appropriate action of you wish to be pregnant or avoid it. If anything, it is much safer than the ingestion of all the dangerous chemicals and devices, and if anyone cares to do their homework, the chemicals and devices are dangerous. I also think that for us who value human life, this is not an argument we should be getting tangled up in. While the debate rages on about contraception, the abortion rate is still through the roof and the women that are succumbing to thinking that abortion is going solve their every problem are passing us by unnoticed.
If any “sexual practice” that is “anti-conception” was a form of contraception, then abstinance in itself (even for an unmarried teenager like myself) would be a form of contraception. But I think we can all agree that this is not immoral. In the same way, when NFP is used correctly, it should also not be considered immoral.
I’m Catholic and I have used NFP only to achieve pregnancy. That’s one big difference between fertility awareness and “contraception.” If you take apart the word “contraception” it means “against conception.” Knowledge of female biology that can help a couple to conceive certainly isn’t of its nature “against conception.”
Also, NFP is not a “sexual practice.” Nothing which is against nature happens before, during or to the sexual act to prevent conception. The *act itself* is still open to the transmission of human life. And, that is the essence of what the Church teaches about the sexual act — nothing must be done to *alter* the act or human biology to prevent conception.
No married couple is required have sex when a woman is fertile nor refrain from the marital act when naturally infertile. It is always licit for couples to engage in the sexual act — whether fertile or infertile. It is permitted that couples refrain from the marital act, provided that both spouses consent, at any time as well.
Of course, there must be sufficiently serious reason for the legitimate spacing or attempt to prevent conception. One’s disposition toward the marital act and its relationship to fertility matters; it affects the spouses’ disposition toward one another.
Lastly, NFP is a concession for Catholic married couples — not a mandate. No one is ever “required” to learn or use fertility awareness methods at any point in their marriage. I say this because there is a lot of confusion, even among Catholics, because of what I believe are misguided efforts to “sell” Natural Family Planning. I think some of those efforts to sell NFP can leave a person very confused as to why NFP is essentially different from contraception.
Yes. And so is abstinence. Abstinence being the most effective. I don’t see why everyone has their panties in a bunch about this. Is it contraception? Yes. That’s not hard to determine or say. If it’s helping you avoid pregnancy, then it’s contraception. The very definition says “sexual practices”.
“Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.”
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of sexual practices. If you are abstaining from intercourse, there is no sexual practice to begin with. What sexual practice is being used if you are abstaining? Oral and anal sex or mutual masturbation are forms of sexual practices.
Abstinence is not a sexual practice. It is the absence of a sexual practice. My teenage daughter and ten-year-old niece abstain from intercourse and sexual practices but they are certainly not contracepting.
NFP is not contraception and neither is abstinence.
Big difference between abstinence and NFP – abstinence is not having sex, at all, EVER – and NFP (when used to avoid prengancy) is 2 sexually active (we hope married) people intentionally abstaining from sex during a fertile window of time. I’d say that sounds like a sexual practice. And contraception when used to prevent pregnancy.
I don’t think that any form of non-abortifacient contraception is immoral, but if NFP is what floats your boat then go for it.
Why, as pro-lifers, must we debate contraception?
I practice contraception and I dare any of y’all to debate the consistency of my pro-life views and commitment.
As a practicing Protestant, my pro-life zeal kicks in AFTER a baby is conceived. Have all the sex you want, if that floats your boat. But once the baby is here (i.e., sperm meets egg), then that’s where I start to care about killing and life and rights.
I am a happily monogamous married mom of 3. Will you say, then, that because my husband and I, not God, decided the size of our family, somehow I am less pro-life than some of you practicing Catholics? (and I honor you for adhering to your Church’s teaching. It is just not my church.)
NFP is not contraception. When you use NFP there are days during the wife’s cycle when you don’t have sex. When you contracept, you have sex whenever you want…but with barriers, chemicals, pills or “other sexual practices” used to prevent conception. If you are engaging in sexual practices, you are having sex in some form. A person who abstains is not engaging in any sexual practices, so according to the dictionary definition and the practical use of NFP, it is NOT contraception.
NFP (when used to avoid prengancy) is 2 sexually active (we hope married) people intentionally abstaining from sex during a fertile window of time. I’d say that sounds like a sexual practice. And contraception when used to prevent pregnancy.
I don’t think that any form of non-abortifacient contraception is immoral, but if NFP is what floats your boat then go for it.
This. Strategic periods of abstinence when one is sexually active is a sexual practice, like it or not.
Good post as well, Courtnay.
The Catholics flipping their sh over being told they’re contracepting when they are is hilarious to me. Why don’t they quit wasting their time twisting their panties over this and go talk to truthseeker’s 8 “Catholic” sisters mentioned on the other thread who are self-professedly pro-choice. You know: worry about crap THAT MATTERS.
Courtney, there are some Catholics who have stated that very thing to me – but that isn’t the norm, that’s for sure.
I have to say I view NFP as the only natural and healthiest, least controversial method of family planning. Not sure if I’d call it a contraceptive though, even though it can and does prevent conception.
Courtnay,
Most forms of contraception kill a child after he/she is conceived- just very shortly thereafter so the mother is unaware. All contraception outside of spermicide and barrier methods cause early abortions. The sperm MEETS the eggs- conception takes place, but the uterine lining is thinned to make sure the baby does not implant and dies from lack of oxygen/nutrition. If you have used any form of hormonal contraception or IUD, you have likely had at least one of these abortions.
You should really educate yourself on what birth control is and how it works before being publicly indignant.
This idea that abstinence (periodic or extended) is contraception is absurd. You must have SEX to have contraception.
I am a chaste single person (and thus celibate)- I AM NOT CONTRACEPTING. Contraception is having sex and trying to strip procreation from it to take pleasure from it and remove consequences. I am not having sex, so I can not be contracepting.
NFP is also not having sex- so NFP is also not contraception. Are couples contracepting when they are traveling for work and aren’t home with their spouse? Now, couples that choose sex acts to specifically avoid contraception are contracepting- because they are having sex and sabotaging fertility.
Do you know what happens when you assume, Jacqueline? I think you do.
Did you miss the part where Courtnay said blatantly “I don’t think that any form of non-abortifacient contraception is immoral, but if NFP is what floats your boat then go for it.”?
Assuming someone is ignorant of something after they’ve made a statement clearly illustrating they are not only serves to make YOU look foolish.
lol. Pro-Choice Catholics. XD
ROFLMAO
I think Catholics should spend less time lecturing non-Catholics about contraception and more time cleaning up their own “Pro-Choice” Catholic family members first.
X-
Courtnay DID NOT say that. Army_wife did. Unless they are one and the same and if so, should use the same moniker.
I *love* it when people try to correct me when I’m not wrong and then look stupid. It’s so poetic.
I stand corrected ON THAT QUOTE, but she still said:
But once the baby is here (i.e., sperm meets egg)
which is basically saying the same quote I misattributed to her in different words.
So once again, who looks stupid here? XD
So once again, who looks stupid here? XD
Again, YOU. She said she supports something and practices something that in a majority of forms, takes a life against her values. So she must be ignorant of how hormonal contraceptives work. If she were aware like army_wife, she’d have pointed that out- instead she appears to think that contraception prevents conception when most have an abortive mechanism.
That was a lame attempt to cover for making as @ss of yourself and instead of a “boy is my face red” you dug yourself deeper. Just admit that you were wrong. When I saw your post and thought maybe she’d spoken of it earlier, I was ready to recant and apologize and stand corrected.
I hope I am wrong. I hope that the method of contraception Courtnay chooses doesn’t kill anyone. I REALLY DO.
She said she supports something and practices something that in a majority of forms, takes a life against her values. So she must be ignorant of how hormonal contraceptives work.
YOU ARE ASSUMING SHE SAID OR PRACTICES HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION WHEN SHE SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT AND EVEN INDICATED HER OPPOSITION OF SUCH BY SPECIFING HER SUPPORT OF LIFE FROM THE POINT SPERM MEETS EGG.
You’re just being a jerk with a capital A and emphasis on the hole at this point, first by telling someone to educate themselves-assuming they are ignorant, and then assuming they are using something they didn’t even specify they were.
You say I am the one looking like an a$$? I’m not the one basing my entire unwarranted tirade against someone else on my own assumptions.
Girls, girls.
Jacqueline, since I am one of the folks here who is adamantly pro-life AND practices birth control, I actually am pretty educated about birth control. So when the sperm is allowed to meet the egg, then the person is here.
PS–my husband got the operation. Yeah, I said it.
Courtnay,
Whew! I’m so glad. Most women don’t know- so I am glad you do! I apologize for assuming you didn’t- but you’d be surprised how many pro-life activists are using abortives and don’t even know it. Although I think it’s really sad to mutilate a functioning organ to prevent being blessed with babies and the blessings for your children and grandchildren (more siblings, more aunts, uncles and cousins). Anything you do that doesn’t kill a child is none of my business- but since most contraceptive methods do- it’s counterproductive to the pro-life effort to champion contraception as a good thing.
X,
Step away from the keyboard. Grow up. And THEN come back.
LOL! Boy, isn’t YOUR face red. XD
“Grow up.” Nah. I’m afraid I might turn into someone crotchety that jumps on everyone else at the slightest hint of percieved inpropriety because I’ve demanded nothing less than perfection from myself my whole life so it then makes me angry to see other people getting by happily while not being as perfect as I am.
Courtnay,
Since you came in dared someone to show inconsistency with people pro-life and pro-contraception, I’ll take that dare. :)
You come from a human rights orientation- if there is no conception, there is no human and there are no human rights to protect. Your focus is on the right to life of unborn humans and so is mine, so like you, preventing humans is not a real concern and rather gives fewer chances that the unborn’s human rights will be violated. I held this same dichotomous view that contraception and abortion were two totally different, separate things- after all, there is a big difference between preventing a person from existing and killed a person that exists. The problem is, while they are different- one fuels the other- contraception is an accelerant to abortion and you can’t promote contraception without fueling abortion (no matter what the intent is). This is written about at length- so I’ll give an overview because I should be writing a conference paper. In no particular order:
1. Most contraception is abortive. The Catholic Church’s overall condemnation of contraception does not involve education on what methods kill children and what does- it’s baked right in. Promoting contraception as acceptable involves education on what to use so that children won’t die. Kind of impossible, pointlessly time-consuming, and risky, isn’t it? Newly-conceived children have just as much a right to live as children old enough to be aborted surgically, so we’d spend time we should spend on the 1.3 million kids a year educating people on what’s not abortive if we choose to support contraception. Since at least 50% of people won’t even care, what you are supporting are pills/devices that give abortions potentially every month since it’s not possible to support contraception and educate on the distinction between true contraception and abortifacients. A blanket opposition of contraception is the only message that won’t potentially result in more dead babies.
2. Contraception fuels abortion- Man, this is multi-faceted, lengthy and complicated. First, if you read the testimony of former abortionists and abortion-supporters, you’ll read that the way they get customers to give them contraceptives so girls will think they are safe from pregnancy and be more sexually-active, knowing that these methods will fail, be misused or forgotten and she’ll come to them for an abortion, the next logical step when you are expecting a baby you tried to prevent. Contraception increases promiscuity and infidelity (because people think they can get away with it) and it routinely fails- leading to abortion. People who contracept DON’T WANT BABIES. So abortion is the way to fix that. Promoting contraception is promoting sex between people who don’t want babies- and we expect those people to respect a child they make? No, the odds are greater that they’ll just kill her. If the consequences of an act (babies) are not acceptable to a person so they are avoided, then this is an act that should be avoided. But that’s not the message you are sending- You are saying that you can have sex and avoid babies and this isn’t altogether true. Furthermore, it’s inconsistent to tell people to go to great lengths to avoid babies and then welcome with open arms those babies they tried to avoid. When that unwanted baby is conceived, odds are greater that she’ll be killed than allowed to live. When children are to be avoided with pills and surgery (like tubals or vasectomies), how is it strange to us that someone would take an abortion pill or have surgery to remove that child they didn’t want. There is more, but I’ll move on to broad point number 3.
3. Contraception treats children like the plague- I won’t touch on how it’s antithetical to Christianity to treat the blessing of children like a curse to be avoided (how it’s foolish to choose worldly things over eternal things), rather I will continue from a totally pragmatic standpoint. Contraception treats children like a liability. They take time, cost money and are a threat to your lifestyle and happiness. Americans would much rather have two cars than two children because we don’t see their value. This viewpoint of children=bad fuels abortion because the reasons people prevent children (lack of money or time) are the same reasons people kill them (lack of money or time). Trading something priceless like a baby for more money/time (whether that’s by avoiding them or killing them)- are the same foolish values- since all the quality time and quality stuff you buy your kids last a short while but a sibling is eternal. My parents valued fancy trips for their 2 children and nice things and small intimateness over sharing with more children and I would trade all that luxury for just one more sibling as an adult. People make excuses that contraception is best for their children but that’s just a rationalization to cover the truth that they selfishly don’t want to give any more of themselves or their money to another child. These values: materialism, selfishness and short-sidedness are what contraception promotes and those values are in lock-step with abortion. If you promote these values by supporting contraception, you fuel abortion whether you mean to or not.
That was a broad overview- but why the pro-life movement and contraception are opposed.
It’s really quite simple people: A contraceptive prevents pregnancy while you have sex. Using NFP, you abstain from sex. Since you’re not having sex (during NFP), there is no opportunity to use a contraceptive.
It would be stupid to say that as a teenager abstaining from sex, I am practicing contraception. If I am not having sex, I am not using a contraceptive.
Jacqueline–
I appreciate the time it took to write all that, and believe me, I read it, several times. And since I truly appreciate your sincerity, I would never call in to question your devotion to the pro-life cause or your faith. So I suppose that this is going to have to be a sticking point for us.
I agree that contraception can be abused. Wholeheartedly so. Teenage girls with their whole lives ahead of them. Unmarried couples who are having sex for the sake of having sex. I could give you a thousand examples. But I ask you not to include me in this premise as well as the one you wrote above, “Contraception (then, it would follow, contraceptors) treat(s) children like the plague.” Girl, that is WILDLY presumptuous. God blessed me with a good, Godly man who, when we wanted me, married me, and set down to raise a family with me. We have 3 amazing, complex, VALUED children, and a misscarried one I know I will see one day. He is not a vain man, and so when the kids started coming, he was able to support us on a teaching salary while I was home for 10 years.
Our car is 11 years old, and his truck is 18 years old. We do not take vacations. Sometimes I pick him up after work and we go have a few beers so we can actually talk to one another, but that’s about it. Oh, and I got to take my teenage daughter to a Taylor Swift concert last year. When he’s not working, he cuts wood for firewood and sells it. We look at our 3 kids and know how amazingly blessed we are. Everything we do is all about the family God has given us. And we are both home every night to tuck them in and say prayers.
When Payton, our youngest, was born, we knew we were done. We married in our late 20s and didn’t have babies until our early 30s. Our family was complete, and I, as a believer, have never ONCE reconsidered our choice to have more. THIS IS NOT TO SAY that if, miraculously, we were to conceive, we would not welcome with every anticipation, another child into our family. But this is where we are, what we have chosen. Every family is different. God surely commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. We’ve obeyed. God did not say, get married and have as many babies as you possibly can. If you feel so led, beautiful. I so support you. We were not led that way.
Your comment makes it sound like everytime we have sex and don’t enter into it with the idea of hey, let’s have another baby, somehow we are killing our future children. They aren’t here! We have no future children unless we and God decide to. Remember my initial post: once the baby is here, he is cherished and valued and protected. I am not removing a child I didn’t want; the child does not exist in the first place.
Family size is a very personal choice. But whether you go the surgical route like we did, or you carefully plan your sex with a calendar, most married couples want some sort of say in how many children they raise. And we can be no less pro-life than you and God’s blessings come to us just as equally.
My issue is with the marketing of the software. Blue-skinned woman with 80’s eye shadow?
Notice how the male is left out of the equation?
Imagine the appeal if there’s a picture of a man alongside Blue Woman instead of a butterfly!
Not sure if I’d call it a contraceptive though, even though it can and does prevent conception.
I agree, Kel. Pregnancy can and does prevent conception (ten known exceptions) as well but I doubt anyone would call being pregnant contracepting.
The question is “Is NFP a form of contraception?” When practicing Catholics answer (many of us based on years of studying and debating this issue) we hear comments like, I honor you for adhering to your Church’s teaching but in another statement we hear, The Catholics flipping their sh over being told they’re contracepting when they are is hilarious to me. Why don’t they quit wasting their time twisting their panties over this and go talk to truthseeker’s 8 “Catholic” sisters mentioned on the other thread who are self-professedly pro-choice. You know: worry about crap THAT MATTERS.
I don’t see anyone here that says NFP is not contraception debating in a way that could be referred to as ”twisting their panties” or “flipping their sh t”. Your anger toward those of us who disagree with you is disheartening, xalisae.
After reading through these posts, I am not feeling anything close to honor for adhering to Catholic teachings.
There are many differences between NFP and artificial contraception. As already stated, abstaining from sex isn’t really a sexual practice. NFP requires regular communication and respect between husbands and wives. It does not take God out of the equation, but instead uses the natural fertility patterns that women were created with to decide whether or not now is the time to have another child. NFP requires no barrier between the husband and wife, allowing for complete giving of self and receiving of spouse. No hormones are used, no abortifacents.
The Catholic Church asks that married couple be open to new life. NFP allows for that open-ness. No barrier to conception is used.
Using NFP has been a completely positive experience for our marriage. It isn’t always easy, but it is worth it.
God did not say, get married and have as many babies as you possibly can.
NFP doesn’t say this either. And neither did Jacqueline.
Sorry I’m having a “Pissed Ex-Catholic Day” today. Between Jacqueline jumping on someone before getting the facts so she could feel self-righteous and right down the hall in another thread you’ve got ts talking about their 8 “Pro-Choice Catholic” sisters…I’m just not feeling any love today for The Church.
And I do apologize, and I apologize sincerely. It’s just that…do you all see how absurd it appears to someone on the outside that you all are making a fuss about contraception, the death penalty, and things like that when so many within don’t seem to give a rat’s rear end about actual live babies being killed by their mothers? And I know I’m definitely taking this out on the wrong set of Catholics, if ever there was a wrong set, because you all are here at Jill’s, and that in itself speaks for your sincerity….just seems like there are other irons in the fire that should be hammered out, first.
This attitude of “Catholics do your thing and we Protestants will do ours” misses something essential: The proscription against contraceptive use is not man-made law, it is part of the natural moral law. That is, the law written on every man’s heart regardless of his individual faith or profession. The same law which tells every man/woman/child that murder is evil, that lying is wrong and marriage is between one man and one woman.
I challenge the Protestants on this list to read Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae in order to get a clean grasp on the moral problem of contraception and those created by contraceptive use.
Thanks for your sincere apology, xalisae.
No worries. We Prolifers still rock!
Courtnay, I totally agree with you. I am a married mom of 2 (one is born and one on the way). I am Baptist and I love NFP. its natural and it costs nothing! however, my Catholic husband wants to use condoms. I don’t see an issue with that. We are not killing any children. It is not evil to space children whether its through barrier methods or NFP. But Catholics like to feel self-righteous and lecture other married couples (especially non-Catholics) about how immoral we are. Well whatever. My husband and I have LOTS of sex, enjoy it and don’t want to get pregnant every time we do it. There is nothing wrong with that and you won’t find the Catholic view of “Its all about getting pregnant or don’t do it!” in the Bible. Paul even says one of the functions of marriage is to subdue lust. And seriously, if God wants to create another child do you think a little piece of latex is going to stop Him? Do you think the God who parted the Red Sea and caused Mary a VIRGIN to conceive is going to go “Oh no! This protestant couple is using a condom. I can’t give them a baby now!” Its so absurd. Its an absurd, self-righteous view they have. If you are not having sex during your fertile time you aren’t going to get pregnant either. Are you thus holding back the hand of God in your life? Or is it only when you use evil evil condoms!
I just think they need to back off. Mind your own business. What I do with my husband in my marriage bed isn’t some Catholic know-it-alls business. As long as I am faithful to my husband and not killing conceived children WHO CARES? You can’t back up your views on NFP vs. condoms with any scripture so nice try. But I was already told a story about how women who contracept will suddenly cheat on their husbands and become whores. Its just ridiculous and the whole attitude just annoys me. If they were going to be consistent they wouldn’t NFP. They would just have sex whenever and leave it to God how many babies they have.
Wow. Suzanne. I guess my heart wasn’t paying attention that day, because I never got that law.
Murder is wrong, as is lying and marriage other than one man and woman. That’s basic 10 commandment stuff. But my right/responsibility/purview to control my family size?
If, as a Protestant, I have to go to a papal encyclical to understand that that law even exists, then you have entirely missed the point.
I am pro-life. And COMPLETED by my precious 3 babies.
xalisae –Not every issue has to be an obvious matter of life and death to be an important issue for discussion and passion. The truth always matters. And, some seemingly innocuous issues have greater consequences than those immediately intended and foreseen. That is the case with contraception/NFP.
I’m so sorry that you have been hurt/offended by the Catholic Church and Catholics within the Church. I would only offer that truth is about one Person – Jesus Christ. And, that one Person founded a Church filled with weak human beings, but She is the instrument through which His voice is heard. Please do not to be distracted by sinners like me in the Church, sinners can be found everywhere, but the Truth, whole and entire, is found only in one place.
Peace.
Furthermore, couples who have lots of sex have stronger marriages. In NFP you can’t have sex during fertile times (when a woman is most orgasmic) and if your husband is squeamish about menstrual periods like mine is then there goes another week. Not a lot of sex going on. Just saying.
Courtnay — Just because something is written in a papal encyclical doesn’t mean that it is not universally true. The popes also write about the beauty of classical music and the importance of art — does that make classical music or the arts a “Catholic thing”? If you want to read more about the harms and immorality of contraception from the protestant perspective, read anything written by Luther on the topic or other Protestant moral theologians prior to the Council of Lambeth in 1933. Humanae Vitae is simply the clearest, most cogent explanation with which I am personally familiar.
Wow. If y’all knew me, you’d see the irony that on a pro-life website, I’m taking the liberal side! I live amongst pro-abortion, pro gay marriage peace and social justice Episcopalians who thinks I’m just a wal-mart shopping rube who got hoodwinked by George Bush twice. It’s pretty humorous, I’m spouting off feminisms!!!
I LOVE my Lord. And I love all the babies, born and unborn. Considering what my day looks like, I don’t have a whole lot of time to love the babies who aren’t here.
But Catholics like to feel self-righteous and lecture other married couples (especially non-Catholics) about how immoral we are.
Answering why we believe as we do and disagreeing with you and others is self-righteous and lecturing? You’re disagreeing with me and others on this topic so maybe it’s you who is being self-righteous and lecturing. The Catholic bashing gets really old.
And why should I care whether you are faithful or not to your husband Sydney? After all, it’s no more my business than whether you use a piece of rubber to contracept.
Sydney — Catholics think of it this way: If a couple has a serious reason not to conceive a child at a given time, NFP allows that couple to be sexually intimate at least some of the time when they would otherwise have to abstain all together. It is a gift.
P.S. If your menstrual cycle is truly a week long, you may have some hormonal issues to address in which NFP could be helpful in pinpointing.
Courtnay — I won’t belabor the point, but you love babies born and unborn by understanding why you should oppose contraception — it relates to building strong marriages. Strong marriages build healthy, happy families which allow healthy, happy babies. Love and respect for marriage and its faculties = love and respect for children born and unborn.
GRRRR. So annoying. Listen, Praxedes, yes I am “Catholic bashing” since you are bashing “protestants” for using contraception. You think i CARE what some Pope says about something? please. Show me SCRIPTURE, you know GOD’S WORD to back up what you believe. But you can’t. There is nothing sinful about spacing children. There is nothing sinful about using a non-hormonal contraceptive OR using NFP or whatever a married couple chooses to use. So far on this thread and another thread, contracepting wives have been likened to whores, baby-killers, godless etc… I’m just saying aren’t there 4,000 babies a day being ripped apart in their mother’s wombs? And you want to go after married couples who use latex. While pretending that you are so wonderful since you just never have sex with your husband (BUT you are still spacing children). See how that comes across as self-righteous and I’m sorry, but highly hypocritical.
And Suzanne, I had my hormones checked last year when my period was a week late (I was hoping for a baby) and my hormones are 100% fine. Not only that but my cycle is like clockwork every 30 days and my husband I got pregnant the very first month we tried this year. According to biology textbooks periods are 5-7 days long. Thats pretty normal, actually.
And I want to say, I respect my Catholic pro-life friends here. I am not trying to bash your religion and I’m sorry if it comes across that way. But I felt pretty bashed as a “protestant” with all the things the Catholics wrote.
Sorry, Sydney — I was under the impression that a whole week was rather long and may have an underlying cause. But you are correct, concern begins when a period is over a week long.
I don’t think the Catholics here are trying to “bash” anybody — protestant or otherwise. (And, I don’t think the Protestants are necessarily Catholic bashing either.) Each is trying to explain where s/he is coming from. As Catholics, we believe that contraception has seriously harmful consequences. I don’t think any of us here thinks any of you who use contraception don’t give a hang about the things we care about as pertains to life, love, and marriage and are just evil, evil, EVIL! On the contrary, we know you do care about these things but don’t see how they relate to contraceptive use. The Catholics are interested in helping others to see the nature, consequences, and effects of artificial birth control with regard to human life, with regard to marriage, and with regard to family and society at large.
I think that Catholics tend to focus on contraception as evil but really the effects they are (rightly) concerned with are more of a heart issue than a contraception issue. Abortifacient contraception is wrong for sure, no matter what flavor of Christianity you follow. It is possible to be “open to new life” and still use a barrier. It’s still possible to love and accept the “miracle baby” you conceive even after a tubal ligation. And if a married man/woman wants to “mutilate” their “healthy” organs with the agreement of their spouse to prevent conception, really, it’s their business. And Catholics get a bad rap for saying that (“mutilate healthy organs”) as well as pointing the finger at people using barrier methods for “refusing the will of God” or “willful disobedience” or “rejecting the blessing of more children”. The Bible says no such thing, and of course Protestants aren’t going to follow a teaching just because the Pope says so. The Pope isn’t God.
I say, if you have a good relationship with God and listen to the prodding of the Holy Spirit in your life – who is someone else to judge? The Holy Spirit will let you know if you are doing something wrong. God cares about our motivations, what’s in our hearts. None of us are perfect, even when we are “doing everything right” with regards to our spiritual life, but God knows when our hearts are in the right place and when we are sincerely trying to please Him in our lives.
I am pregnant with our fourth child. I dearly love all my children, including the ones in heaven (3 miscarriages, possibly more from when I used hormonal contraceptives a long time ago - before I found out that they might be abortifacients). However, I’m not gifted in the same way as someone who can manage raising a very large family. That requires a level of patience (uh, and finances) that I will not ever attain. My husband and I decided that our fourth child would be our last. I am getting my tubes tied after this baby is born and really this is one situation where I feel that this *is* “my body, my choice”. And you know what? If God decides that we need to have more babies after that, it will be a shock to us – but we’ll love every baby we do have. If God feels so strongly about it that He will bypass tied tubes to make me pregnant again then we can be 100 percent sure that it is the will of God, and that He will provide our emotional and material needs for the child.
GRRRRR.
Listen, Praxedes, yes I am “Catholic bashing” since you are bashing “protestants” for using contraception.
Show me where I bashed anyone for using contraception. The question is “Is NFP a form of contraception?” I still say no.
You think i CARE what some Pope says about something?
No I don’t. Your disrespect of Pope John Paul II is quite obvious. You will never understand this subject until you study the reasons the Church opposes contraception. Since you don’t CARE, I can’t see that happening so maybe you need to mind your own business and only discuss those topics you do understand.
While pretending that you are so wonderful since you just never have sex with your husband
Sorry, but I have no clue what you are trying to say to me. I don’t think I am so wonderful and I do make love with my husband. I simply don’t believe NFP is a form of contraception and I understand why the Church opposes contraception.
You have every right to disagree and “bash” me and other practicing Catholics here. I’m becoming immune to it.
army wife, I have heard proaborts defend abortion by saying that the Holy Spirit will let them know if they are doing something wrong.
army wife, I have heard proaborts defend abortion by saying that the Holy Spirit will let them know if they are doing something wrong.
Please tell me that you are not comparing condom-using pro-lifers to proaborts who misuse the name of the Lord to deliberately kill other human beings.
Question. Do you folks seek to criminalize contraceptive devices and pills?
No, Kel, I am not. I am stating that people disagree with me without taking the time to find out why the Church says what she does about the correlation between contraception and abortion. Saying I don’t CARE what some pope says is not really being open-minded. This is how the proaborts debate.
If I said that the Holy Spirit tells me it is wrong to contracept in my marriage, what would you think? Is the HS telling me something different than he is telling army wife?
Others have stated here that the contraception mentality leads to more abortions. Courtnay even states that contraception is abused but in her case it is alright.
The gas chamber buildings didn’t directly lead to killing Jews so my assisting in constructing these buildings couldn’t possibly be wrong. Right? If I wasn’t there when the Jews went into the building, I have no responsibility in their deaths. Even if those I respected told me the buildings might lead to humans being killed.
Please tell me you are not okay with those who are not willing to learn about something that other prolifers (who they claim to respect and honor) say directly leads to people deliberately killing other human beings.
CC, I’m seeking to educate others that I care about (in the most non-judgemental and loving way I know how) on a subject I know something about.
I am seeking to criminalize the sale of expensive, over-sized purses.
Though NFP is strategically arranging the sex life so as to prevent making babies, it should not, in today’s language be lumped with the term “contraception”.
This is mainly because the FDA has misbranded many drugs, (or devices) which have partial or significant abortive or interceptive mechanisms as contraception.
The term conception has been muddied, with some supposed medical sources confusing it to include the process of implantation. This went along with redefining pregnancy to exclude the earliest stages of embryonic development.
Your friendly Pharmer thinks that the term “fertilization” or “completion of fertilization” should designate the beginning of life for a sexually reproducing organism, and the term “conception” should be removed from the language of reproductive physiology. The term “contraception” should also be removed, as there is no consensus on the meaning of the word.
Not quite bored yet?
Catholics are not supposed to use “intercourse alternatives” to substitute for the kind of sex which produces babies, during the period that they abstain from sex using NFP. Due to hormonal influences on behavior– guess how perfect the compliance is.
But at least NFP doesn’t kill humans at any stage of development. You can’t say this for the drugs which are called “contraceptives”.
I am seeking to criminalize expensive, over-sized purses.
Praxedes, it will do no good for us to criminalize it because people will just go back to using fannie packs anyway if we did.
Due to hormonal influences on behavior– guess how perfect the compliance is.
Do you folks seek to criminalize contraceptive devices and pills?
I certainly wish to criminalize the distribution of contraceptives to unemancipated minors. The majority of these kids will fail to use them correctly and get a false sense of security. The pushers tell them they are 99% effective and the kids get pregnant on em and the same people who push the contraceptives are ready to commit abortion on these girls. It is a travesty that Planned Parenthood gets away with it.
I don’t know what happened to my last post, but I’ll try again. The italics is acting up.
“Due to hormonal influences on behavior– guess how perfect the compliance is.”
Maybe cold showers are contraception? During my first marriage, headaches were my contraception and a case of Bud was his. If we went with his choice first, we didn’t have to use mine.
truthseeker, maybe you are right about the big, expensive purses. Maybe they are here to stay. ):
Praxades, it IS my business when you are attacking pro-lifers like myself who use barrier methods. YOU are the one who can’t come up with any SCRIPTURE to defend your position just blah blah blah about a pope. I am not Catholic. I don’t care about a pope or what he says! He is not God and his word is not God’s Word. Tell me from God’s Word where what I and my husband are doing is sin. That is what I am asking you. THAT would persuade me. Telling me about something a pope wrote isn’t persuasive to someone who doesn’t follow popes.
This thread reminds me about Paul chastising Christians who were fighting about whether it was alright to eat meat offered to idols. Paul said that it was not wrong but if you felt convicted then to you it is wrong! Catholics believe strongly that barrier contraception is wrong. If they feel so convicted then for them it IS wrong. But for others who are not convicted it isn’t. Its the same thing. No human life is taken. No sin is committed but maybe its just like eating meat offered to idols. Thats when you listen to the Holy Spirit.
I mean Praxades, would you care if I said “Well this Baptist preacher so and so said condoms are okay and blah blah blah.” Would you care? NO! Because you don’t follow Baptist preachers. I would be crazy to think that what a Baptist preacher says would change your Catholic views. So come on. I am keeping an open mind. I want to hear what God says on the subject. If I am wrong, then show me. But don’t show me Catholic writings and expect me to care or be convinced. I have read Humane Vitae or whatever its called. I have read it! Now lets move on to SCRIPTURE. Can you show me in the Bible where what I am doing is wrong?
This is what I think. I think if you try to make married people feel guilty for using contraceptives you are placing contraceptives on the same level as abortion. Contraceptives that prevent, not abortificants, do just that they prevent. Killing a baby and preventing conception are two completely different issues and to present them as being the same is to be not only intelluctually dishonest but it’s adding to scripture which is of itself contradictory to scripture. I think pro-lifers whether Catholic, Protestant or agnostic can agree that taking the life of a baby is wrong. When anyone continually tries to equate contraception with abortion I actually wonder if there not really trying to justify abortion or attempting to make individuals feel guilty for something to lessen their own guilt for believing in something they know to be wrong.
Praxedes, it is possible for the Holy Spirit to lead one couple in a different direction than another in a “grey area” issue (something that isn’t a specific moral absolute). I didn’t used to believe that this was the case but I’ve seen it to be true in many committed Christian marriages.
One example would be certain sexual acts. The book “Intended for Pleasure” seems to indicate that oral sex is a sin, for instance. It’s been a while but if I recall, their basis for this assertion was that it could become a substitute for what they deemed more fulfilling activities between a husband and wife. Perhaps this is true for them, but the factors influencing each couple’s marriage are extremely unique. While I believe that the Holy Spirit may lead some couples to abstain from this activity due to heart-issues or something within their marriage, I don’t believe it’s a sin for every couple. I know of other committed Christian couples who do not have any complicating issues with respect to this act, and it is all part of their intimacy, one thread in the tapestry of their marriage, their connection. Besides that, there are many scholars who believe specific passages discuss this and other acts in Song of Solomon (which of course is all about a married couple whose intimacy is portrayed as good in the Bible).
Another example would be homeschooling as opposed to public-schooling one’s children. Some couples feel very strongly that the HS leads them to homeschool. If God desires for them to do so then yes, it would be sin for them to refuse. Other parents do not have the same leading, instead being given the mission to carefully train their children to resist the outside influences pulling at them even while they attend public school. Again, there are different issues at play in each family and in each place. God knows what is best for each unique situation and I believe that He leads accordingly.
As to Christians who believe the HS is dandy with abortion - they are doing wrong and most of us here realize this. It’s my opinion that they are not as close to God as they need to be if they are so far gone as to think abortion is OK. I make this statement bearing in mind that I am not the final judge – however, I *am* to be a “fruit inspector”. I think all of the Christians on this blog can agree that abortion is a universal wrong (unscriptural, un-Godly). There is something (the HS) inside us that says “there’s something wrong here” when we hear someone professing to be ”Christian *and* pro-choice”. This concept (Christian and pro-choice) is not the proper fruit of the Spirit for any Christian, whether Catholic, Protestant, or … whatever.
There are black-and-white absolute moral standards by which every Christian should order his/her life, and then there are gray areas that we need to bear in mind that each Christian may be led slightly differently with regards to. This is something it took me several years of being a Christian to learn. I used to be extremely legalist about everything until I realized that there are certain areas where God may lead a bit differently. This was a hard truth for me to accept at first. Until I did, I was stressed every time someone suggested that I was a sinner/heathen unless I did or did not XYZ like they did. According to some, all Christian women should be married, Quiverfull, homeschooling, dress- and head-covering wearing, etc. etc. The fact is that God gifts each of us differently and places us in different families with different needs and circumstances. I’m not gifted with the ability to be quiverfull, and at this moment in time I am not able to handle homeschooling (although it’s always an option later on down the road if our circumstances require it). I need to worry less about what the Christian down the block is doing and how much “better” they’re doing at it than I am, and just rely on God to lead me through my own life.
Yes, of course. NFP is contraception (the prevention on conception by intentional actions).
When anyone continually tries to equate contraception with abortion I actually wonder if there not really trying to justify abortion or attempting to make individuals feel guilty for something to lessen their own guilt for believing in something they know to be wrong.
This doesn’t sound like myrtle to me but I guess I’m learning a lot about others today. I teach TOB. I would not teach children something that I know is wrong but I’m starting to feel like some here believe I would.
I believe contraception is wrong (I have not always felt this way, used to contracept, have studied and prayed long and hard about it) and am completely offended that anyone would think I would knowingly teach something to teens that I believe to be wrong and that justifies abortion.
I am not trying to make anyone feel guilty. No one here has equated non-abortifant contraceptions to abortion. Some have stated that NFP is not contraception and that contraception leads (on the whole) to more abortions in our society. Do you need me to point out scripture to prove that Christians should oppose those things that lead to the killing of humans?
Sydney, I am not attacking. I am disagreeing with you. You stated earlier, “I just think they need to back off. Mind your own business. What I do with my husband in my marriage bed isn’t some Catholic know-it-alls business. ” You know contraception is not wrong so does this make you Baptist know-it-all?
Later, when I say what I believe is none of your business you get all upset.
You say what you do in your marriage bed is none of our business but you told us all that you were upset your husband continued to use condoms when you wanted to get pregnant. Why did you let us know your business if it is none of our business?
Wouldn’t you agree that contraception is my business if I believe it leads to more abortions?
It wasn’t that long ago that you were upset that your husband was using condoms because he didn’t want another child. The next we know, your husband changed his mind and decided he did want another child. What happens if he again changes his mind and said he wasn’t thinking clearly when he decided to stop using condoms and lets you know this?
There is a lot of anger and defensiveness on this thread. I’m not going to get into Sacred Scripture here Sydney. Scripture doesn’t say anything directly about artificial insemination either, but I oppose that as well.
I need to worry less about what the Christian down the block is doing and how much “better” they’re doing at it than I am, and just rely on God to lead me through my own life.
Right. Then why comment on a post asking about NFP or on what Christian proaborts do for that matter? Just rely on God to lead you and forget about your Christian bros and sis’s that may be on the wrong path. After all, you’ve already got it all figured out.
David, you forgot the second part of the definition – through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.
Be careful, it does make a difference in the definition.
NFP is not contraceptive because there’s no sex act during fertile times. Except when the woman is fertile. Whatever. It involves self restraint and leaves fertility intact. And it’s genuine family planing, as you can achieve or avoid pregnancy.
Sydney, this issue is bigger than which pope said what. Protestant reformers were against contraception. The Christian world was united on this until the 1930’s. I would ask you which Scripture passages Luther, Calvin, etc. used to defend their position. And I would ask you why the Anglicans allowed for contraception starting in the 1930’s. I think you sharing Protestant history would be helpful in this area.
Sydney,
You state that you respect Catholics. Catholics don’t believe the bible is the sole source of infallible truth. You disagree. Fine. But if you respect Catholics, as you claim to do, then you have to acknowledge that stating our beliefs is not attacking you. So we think things are immoral that you think are fine and dandy. So what. I’ve seen that anti-Catholic literature put out by the fundamentalist churches. I’m confident enough in my faith that it doesn’t phase me that they think I’m going to hell. Short of Catholics agreeing with you on contraception or never speaking up at all on the issue, please tell me what they could say that you wouldn’t construe as an attack?
Also on the topic at hand – NFP is not contraception. My panties aren’t in a twist if someone disagrees on that or wants to include it in the definition. The Church doesn’t oppose contraception b/c of what we call it, but b/c of the damage it does to the sexual union. So you can call abstinence and NFP and being out of town contraception if you want, but then all we have is a situation where Catholics would consider some forms of contraception moral and some not.
“CC, I’m seeking to educate others that I care about (in the most non-judgemental and loving way I know how) on a subject I know something about.
I am seeking to criminalize the sale of expensive, over-sized purses.”
Cute, but it’s a question worth answering and discussing seriously. A simple yes or no would be a good starting point. I’d like to know where the loudest voices against contraception here stand on this issue too.
Praxedes
I was referring to people who intentionally try to make contracepting and abortion the same issue. They’re not contraceptives (non-abortificants) prevent unlike abortion that kills. I should have started my post with that statement and it would have been a lot clearer. And it’s me posting. :)
Sydney
How are you doing?
This comment is addressed to anyone who uses any form of artificial or barrier method of contraception, be they Catholic or non-Catholic. (And NO, NFP is NOT contraception, though it can be abused as anything can be.)
Up until the Lambeth Conference of 1933 EVERY Christian denomination, as well as the Catholic Church, taught that Contraception is an abomination in the eyes of God. TRUTH does NOT CHANGE. What was an abomination in the eyes of God before 1933 is still an abomination. This is not a truth meant only for Catholics, but for everyone. It just so happens that Christ made promises to the Church that He founded; one of them being that the Holy Spirit would guide it into ALL TRUTH. Any honest historian will admit that that Church is the Catholic Church. When people dismiss or disparage the Church, whether they realize it or not, they are dismissing the God-given authority that Christ Himself gave to His Church. Like Korah and his followers in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Book of Numbers, they are playing with FIRE. When we reject God-given authority, we actually reject the Lord. If you don’t know this then you haven’t really read your bible very thoroughly.
As a Catholic I know that sometimes the truths that the Catholic Church proclaims are not always popular or easy, as is the case with Her teachings regarding the evil of artificial contraception. But before you condemn the Church for these teachings, you might be fair about it and do some homework about this most important issue of our day.
Actually, for you “bible only” Christians, I would say that there is more than ample scriptural evidence for the teachings of the Church. (And thanks be to God’s grace many of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters are now seeing the tragic effects of the contraceptive mentality. Check out the Baptist minister who started the annual “life chain” who is now calling upon protestant ministers to preach the truth about the evil of contraception; my husband read it to me two days ago on Life Site News. http://www.lifesitenews.com)
As a Catholic, I have read the Bible several times. Contraception (contra meaning AGAINST and ception, meaning conception, life) is in total opposition to the clear teaching of sacred Scripture that CHILDREN ARE A BLESSING. Please ask yourself this question: What is the OPPOSITE of a BLESSING? It is a CURSE. My friends, until the issue of contraception is dealt with honestly we will never, never be rid of the plague of abortion. They are bedfellows, plain and simple. Common sense will also be helpful to us in finding the truth regarding contraception: planned parenthood, the largest perpetrator of abortions in the world, is the same organization that vociferously, rabidly, zealously promotes artificial contraceptives and sterilization, not only in our country but throughout the world.
Following are a few of many Scripture passages that speak volumes regarding the blessing of fertility, the blessing of children. Ps. 127:3-5 ”Lo, sons are a heritage from the Lord, the FRUIT OF THE WOMB A REWARD. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them!”
1 Chron. 25:5 ”All these were the sons of Heman the king’s seer, according to the PROMISE of GOD to EXALT him; for GOD had given Heman 14 SONS and 3 DAUGHTERS.”
Gen. 5:1-3,6,9,12,15,18,21,25,28,32 and many other passages which proclaim children to be a blessing in old age.
Gen. 1:27,28 “…An GOD BLESSED THEM and GOD said to them, BE FRUITFUL and MULTIPLY…”
Gen. 4:25 “GOD HAS APPOINTED FOR ME ANOTHER CHILD.”
Gen. 17:2 “…I will make my covenant between me and you and will MULTIPLY YOU EXCEEDINGLY.”
Gen 17:6 “I WILL MAKE YOU EXCEEDINGLY FRUITFUL….
Gen. 20:17,18 “…and God healed Abimelech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children. For the LORD HAD CLOSED ALL THE WOMBS of the house of Abimelech…” [God had caused the women of the house to be BARREN as a PUNISHMENT.]
Gen. 22:17 ”I will INDEED BLESS you, and I will MULTIPLY your DESCENDANTS as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore.”
Gen. 24:60 Gen. 25:21 Gen. 28:3 Gen. 30:1,2 Gen:35:11
Gen. 26:24 Gen. 48:3 Ex. 1:7 Ex. 1:15-22 Ex. 41:50-52
1 Chron. 26:4 “And Obededom had sons [EIGHT SONS]; for GOD BLESSED HIM.
Dt. 1:10 “The LORD your GOD has MULTIPLIED YOU…”
Dt. 7:12-14 “And because you hearken to these ordinances, and keep and do them, the Lord your God will keep with you the COVENANT and the steadfast love which He swore to your fathers to keep; He will love you, BLESS YOU and MULTIPLY YOU; He will also bless the fruit of your body and the fruit of your ground… You shall be BLESSED ABOVE ALL PEOPLES; THERE SHALL NOT BE MALE OR FEMALE BARREN AMONG YOU…”
Here is my favorite: Ps. 128:1-4 “BLESSED is every one who FEARS the LORD, who walks in HIS WAYS! You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. YOUR WIFE WILL BE LIKE A FRUITFUL VINE WITHIN YOUR HOUSE; YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE LIKE OLIVE SHOOTS AROUND YOUR TABLE. LO, THUS SHALL THE MAN BE BLESSED WHO FEARS THE LORD.”
As Christians we need to trust in God and be willing to give up all for the sake of the kingdom. We must love TRUTH, because TRUTH is Jesus Christ and scripture tells us that God chose us from the beginning to be SAVED through sanctification by the Spirit and BELIEF IN THE TRUTH; 2 Thes. 13-15 goes on to say: To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” So how do we determine where to find the answers or who to believe regarding the issue of contraception. We go to the Church that Christ founded, the one that rightly claims to possess the fullness of TRUTH, just as Christ promised.
Here are a few more Scripture passages, this time from the New Testament:
Matt. 19:14 “…Let the children come to me, and DO NOT HINDER THEM; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” [Contraception and abortion definitely hinder children from coming to Jesus.]
1 Tim. 2:15 “Yet woman will be SAVED THROUGH BEARING CHILDREN, IF she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” (Take note of this one ladies!)
Lk. 1:36,37 Lk. 1:42 Lk. 1:57,58
Rom, 9:22 “And as Isaiah predicted, ‘IF THE LORD OF HOSTS HAD NOT LEFT US CHILDREN,WE WOULD HAVE FARED LIKE SODOM AND BEEN MADE LIKE GOMORRAH.'” [Sodom and Gomorrah were immersed in homosexual perverse practices that were by their nature STERILE. Contraceptive sex renders the sexual act as perverse because its purpose is to thwart the fruitfulness for which God created the sexual union between a husband and wife. Engaging in purposeful STERILE sex is an abomination in God’s sight. There is really no difference between the purposeful STERILE sex of a husband and wife and between that of two homosexuals. No wonder our society is fast accepting the homosexual agenda; it is one of the results of the contraceptive mindset.
Also, of course, we have in Scripture the case of Onan who spilled his seed. Genesis 38:9,10 says: “But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him…” Now I have heard the argument that he was slain for his refusal to raise up children for his brother. This is not so because another passage makes clear that the punishment for simply refusing to raise up a child for your deceased brother was much less severe. Deuteronomy 25:5-9 states, “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.'” It is very clear then that God punished the brother who had sex with his deceased brother’s wife, taking her as his wife, but performing coitus interruptus, more commonly known as withdrawal.
God did not create sex as just a pleasurable activity, but for the purpose of procreation and bonding between a husband and wife. But mankind always seems to have a better idea than the Creator. We have basically, as a society, kicked God out of the classrooms, the public square, and even our bedrooms. Is it any wonder that our nation is on a slippery road to destruction?
In closing, finally, I want to add this passage from Deuteronomy 30:19; to me it says it all. ”I have set before you life and death, the BLESSING and the CURSE. CHOOSE LIFE…”
THE OPPOSITE OF A BLESSING IS A CURSE.
NFP is a form of birth control. To be precise, the Church teaches that all forms of intentional, artificial birth control are immoral. NFP is intentional but not artificial. It works with natural cycles of fertility and is approved by the Church to be used in this manner in serious situations.
The misunderstanding is due to the fact that most people tend to just say “birth control” when they mean artificial birth control.
NFP is not used solely as a means of birth control, but it is also used to assist in conceiving a child.
I hate that we are arguing so violently over this.
Some forms of what are called contraception kill a newly conceived human being. That is wrong. It should be illegal to sell and use drugs which may harm unborn children without a good, medical reason.
Some forms of contraception only prevent sperm from meeting egg. There is disagreement about whether this is wrong. I don’t think these forms of contraception should be illegal. I also don’t think extramarital sex or overeating or ugly purses should be illegal. I completely agree that it’s not my business. But if someone tells me they are doing one of these things, or asks my opinion, I will try to show them that these actions are wrong, because I believe they are. I believe they hurt the individuals who do them more than others, and I wouldn’t get too emotional about it, but it isn’t God’s best. Destroying or maiming healthy organs does not sit well with me either. Sometimes my right arm gets in my way. Sometimes my sense of smell seems like a curse. Sometimes I wish I did not have to urinate. But my instinctive revulsion to mutilating a person’s body makes it hard to understand taking action about these things, and extends to operations intended to destroy the functionality of reproductive organs. If I learned someone planned a sterilization, I would try to talk them out of it.
NFP is distinctly different from other types of contraception that involve taking an action to prevent conception. Whether it is contraceptive seems to depend on a precision of semantics. The question is not “How do we define this particular word?” but “What is licit?”
The authentic Catholic view holds that using NFP to prevent conception is licit only for grave reasons. It’s not just “Catholic birth control.” And I do agree that there are serious consequences to the long-term denial of the sexual urge when women most desire–one might legitimately say need–sexual fulfillment. There are also serious consequences to putting a barrier in the most intimate part of your marriage. I can really only speak for myself in this, but if my husband were to desire the long-term prevention of children, it would be bad for our marriage no matter what. I could not in good conscience consent to introducing a barrier in the marriage bed. It feels so wrong to have a third party in on the act. In a moment of weakness I might consent in bad conscience. I could not agree to the mutilation of my own body or my husband. And abstaining from sex at fertile times might destroy me or my marriage. We have been struggling with medical problems which have led to periods of abstinence for reasons not related to the conception of children. Going a week without sex has a negative effect on our marriage. Going even 3 or 4 days without sex has a negative effect on my mental health. Sex has serious hormonal benefits and I am predisposed to depression. During my most fertile time I have a very strong sex drive, and denying it would not be good for me. I say this not because I can’t take sacrifice or don’t have self-control, but because I have tried it, and it has a very negative effect on my mental health. My whole body works better with regular sex (if I don’t have sex in the period leading up to ovulation, I am less likely to ovulate). I can’t see NFP being a good long term option for me–but I can’t see anything else working either. Luckily, I do want as many children as God sees fit to send me. Maybe He works it out so that couples who can’t handle NFP do. I do know that children don’t happen apart from God.
Theresa, sorry but no. I do not believe that God designed a woman’s body to hold up to having a baby every year. Just because we don’t have what it takes to raise a large number of children does NOT mean that we don’t value children or see them as blessings. If you think God will “curse” my family for limiting our number of children (blessings) to four, then all you can do is watch our “train wreck” from afar. Although I think you might be disappointed. Everybody has trifling problems in this life, it’s true, and you may point to ours as “proof” that we are cursed of God but really – me, my husband, and God need to work this one out together. God knows our hearts and what needs to be fixed there, and what is already good in there. He’ll do any work in us that needs to be done. Family size is a serious consideration and one that we are not taking lightly at all. If God doesn’t want me to get my tubes tied, it’s up to Him to show me that I shouldn’t and I’ve told Him so. :-)
And we’ll have to agree to disagree on Onan. The Jewish law at the time may not have prescribed death for a man who refused to provide children for a dead brother, but we don’t know what Onan’s other sins were (or perhaps the level of selfishness in his heart had reached a disturbingly high level when he did Tamar wrong). Onan didn’t just deprive Tamar of the joy of a child, he was also dooming her to a life of abject poverty since she would not have a child to care for her in her old age – also, Onan would have to share his (deceased) brother’s share of his inheritance with said child since this child would be counted as his brother’s and not his. Onan knew all this and refused to provide her a child. I don’t believe the sin was the prevention of the child but rather the motivation behind it (greed, selfishness, not caring about Tamar but using her for his own pleasure while denying her any hope of a future…). God always has good reason for what He does and we’re human – we don’t always know all the reasons. It’s rather a stretch to assume God’s problem was the “contraception” part of the deal when Scripture does not say that.
YCW, I am sorry you are having a rough time of it. There have been many times in my life when following my convictions has been difficult to say the least. I agree with you on abortifacient “contraception”. It makes my blood boil whenever I see a commercial for an IUD which calls it a “contraceptive” and slips something in about “preventing pregnancy”. Grrrr! Hormonal contraceptives are difficult to prove one way or the other but IUDs are the most blatantly obvious abortifacient device commonly used today. The makers of IUDs should be sued for false advertising. X-(
“Well this Baptist preacher so and so said condoms are okay and blah blah blah.” Would you care? NO!
Yes, I would care, Sydney, because what he tells others affects all of us.
myrtle, I am sorry for assuming. My bad.
Just because we don’t have what it takes to raise a large number of children does NOT mean that we don’t value children or see them as blessings.
There are a lot of things that have come up in my life that I formerly never thought I would ever be able to take or even live through (hanging in on this thread would have been one of them). But I was wrong.
Thy will be done, not my will be done.
Yes, of course. NFP is contraception (the prevention on conception by intentional actions).
David, that is a fallacy by ommision. Here is an example. I want to be the world champion of tennis. The world champion goes undefeated throughout the entire US Open. I refuse to play in the US Open. I am now the world champion of tennis because I never lost in the US Open.
Army_wife,
If God doesn’t want me to get my tubes tied, it’s up to Him to show me that I shouldn’t and I’ve told Him so.
That’s clearly what He’s doing now, but you are not receiving it.
If you want to hear it from the Holy Spirit directly- do the following. Pray and bind the world, the flesh and the devil in Jesus’ name and listen in silence for the Holy Spirit to give you a chapter and verse. That scripture will clarify this. If you are truly open to God’s will in this, then you need to do that.
Theresa
The body of Christ is the church and does not consist of one denomination but many.
I have noticed that everyone who has decided to use contraception feels the need to justify their decision at length. If there is nothing wrong with contraception, why do you need to justify it’s use by your circumstances?
The bottom line is that people use contraception because they don’t want a baby. It’s really that simple. The reasons for not wanting another baby vary from already having babies and not wanting to deal with the expense/effort of more babies or never wanting babies at all- but the at the end of the day, it’s simply that they don’t want another baby. All the talk about finances and lack of ability to handle more children and such are really just excuses because if you wanted another baby, I doubt these concerns would stop you. I have never found someone who wanted to have a baby and let some concern (for the baby or siblings) stop them- rather, this “concern” was a smokescreen to cover the fact that the person didn’t want a baby and refuse to admit it. Concerns serious enough to prevent children wouldn’t be serious enough to place that child for adoption if you were to still get pregnant- so really, they are just excuses to justify doing what you want to do. If you don’t want another baby- just say so. If you are reticent to admit that because you think there is something wrong with not wanting another baby, then you should ask yourself why you don’t want another baby. Reasons for not wanting to be blessed with a child are rarely if ever, holy and selfless reasons. It’s typically rooted in greed.
Further, hard truth is that people that appreciate children won’t tell God “no more!” And they certainly don’t thank Him for blessing them with the ability to have children by make themselves as barren as the heartbroken couples who can’t have children at all. You don’t show God your appreciation for allowing you the privilege of having children (a privilege infertile couples would die for) by making yourself infertile. Essentially, you got what you want in terms of number/genders of children and you’re flipping God the bird- daring Him to thwart your efforts to bless you further by miraculously causing another conception after you’ve gone to great lengths to thwart Him already. With that logic, I am going to never exercise and eat junk food and if the Lord wants me skinny and healthy, He can speed up my metabolism to undo my efforts to hinder Him blessing me with good health. Absurd? Not as absurd and chopping up your internal organs to prevent babies and claiming you are not sabotaging God’s desires for your family because “He can get around that.” If you truly cared what He desires, you’d be open to it and not going to excessive lengths to stop it.
What I find absurd about the whole contraception argument is that NFP offers a way to achieve all that contraception acheives but without the hormones and health risks, without the financial/physical cost, without cutting anyone open and mutilating their functioning organs—- there are benefits to marriage, to children, to learning about your body and spotting health problems early-on. The benefits are immeasurable but people won’t do it because it involves exercising self-control for a limited window each month. So because people want sex when they want it and without consequences (again, greed), they are willing to endure all these problems that contraceptives create and forego blessings on their marriage and health. The Enemy must LOVE that.
So it all seems to boil down to greed if you both don’t want a baby and also don’t want to forego sex for any length of time. These aren’t righteous qualities.
Theresa
I googled quiverfull and one definition says quiverfull is two. And it references the archers bows. So if the word quiverfull was derived from the same word a quiverfull of children meant two. I think if you remember people in the bible who God specifically blessed you will see that their own families were not always large. So to add an extra burden to families by saying that a large family is a prerequisite for blessedness might not be accurate.
army_wife
If you want to limit the size of your family you should ask your husband to have a vasectomy. Tubal ligations are very tough on a womans body. Mine was at least. How are you doing?
Jacqueline
So if you do get married you won’t do anything to thwart what you perceive to be the will of God by utilizing preventative measures? And of course you know that NFP is preventative. And because your not guilty of the greed you assume couples who contracept are guilty of then how many children do you plan on giving a home too. If I had the resources I know I would adopt but I don’t so if someone were to accuse me of greed I would have to disagree.
The body of Christ is the church and does not consist of one denomination but many.
Hi myrtle, Is God telling some denominations that contraception is wrong and another church that it is okay?
Jacqueline,
It’s pretty presumptuous for you to assume that you are the instrument of God’s will in this case. Sorry, but spiritual bullying does not mean that you’re right and I’m wrong as you seem to assume. Nobody is asking you to go against your personal convictions with regards to contraception.
Myrtle Miller,
I have reasons for not asking my husband to get a vasectomy. One of them is that I don’t feel comfortable with asking him to go through a medical procedure that he may not want. He offered but I’d rather just get it done myself. I’m doing OK though. Enough stress to go around but that’s life. I will be 20 weeks pregnant in a few days and I hope to be able to get in to see the OB finally and get the 20-week ultrasound done. I’m anxious to know the gender of this baby so I can buy clothes, and I like to have the reassurance that the child is doing OK.
army_wife,
I said: “If you want to hear it from the Holy Spirit directly- do the following. Pray and bind the world, the flesh and the devil in Jesus’ name and listen in silence for the Holy Spirit to give you a chapter and verse. That scripture will clarify this. If you are truly open to God’s will in this, then you need to do that.”
Telling you to pray and get a Word from the Lord is not spiritual bullying. You said you’d prayed previously for God to show you if you shouldn’t have this surgery. I’m just a prophet. I can’t control what Scripture the Holy Spirit gives you, but I’m required to tell you to go get a Scripture. The fact that you aren’t willing pray about this and listen confirms that you are NOT open to God’s will and you don’t want to give Him a chance to tell you no. You want to do what you want to do for you and His will is not your utmost concern. If you care about His will- pray about this and get a His Word to you about this. If you don’t care about His will, don’t pray and listen, but don’t lie and say that you care.
-Jacqueline
P.S. By the way, telling the Lord you intend to do something unless He tells you otherwise is not how the Christian life works- Rather, you pray and ask what He would have you do and not tell Him your plans and invite Him to stop you (but not listen when He does). He’s the Father, we’re the children. We ask permission- we don’t declare what we are going to do and dare Him to stop us. You wouldn’t put up with that behavior from your children, would you? The parents tell the children what the children should do, not the other way around. This is so the parents can protect the children from doing things that would harm them. Trust me, for your own well-being, you WANT to pray and listen.
army_wife
Sorry about that I wanted to suggest an alternative that would not compromise your own health. I was going to edit the part about the vasectomy but had to go do something and when I came back it was already posted. I had a lot of difficulty after having my tubes tied but maybe you won’t. A lot of women though that I’ve spoken with have the same problem I did so that’s what makes me think tubal ligations are not as safe as they should be. Hope everything goes really well for you and your baby. Speaking of stress did you know that your B complex vitamins are excellent for stress and how good folic acid is for you and your baby? A defiency in folic acid can even lead to birth defects. That’s why the prenatal vitamins are so important. I wish we could give you and Sydney a baby shower. Maybe the moderators and Jill will figure something out.
Praxedes
I believe God speaks to us through scripture. What are your thoughts?
Jacqueline: I love that weight/junk food analogy to the “If God wants me to get pregnant, He can work a miracle and make it so”. God can accomplish all things, but the measure of morality is OUR disposition towards Him and his will, not his capability to overcome our will with his own.
myrtle miller says:
Jacqueline
So if you do get married you won’t do anything to thwart what you perceive to be the will of God by utilizing preventative measures? And of course you know that NFP is preventative.
NFP is only supposed to be used as a preventative in serious circumstances after prayerful consideration. Not b/c another baby would be hard or so you can have sex when your most orgasmic or whatever. Using NFP in the latter way does as much violence to the marital union as contraception.
This is an excellent post that details why NFP is not contraception (summary: birth control is not the same as contraception).
Here’s what I don’t get – if NFP is contraception, how on earth am I able to use it successfully to ACHIEVE pregnancy as well as to avoid pregnancy? AFAIK, women don’t never use contraception with the specific intent to achieve pregnancy, therefore NFP can’t be in the same category.
CT,
Thank you- on another note, there is some serious audacity and irreverance to tell God what you are going to do and that He will have to subvert you to do His will. I want to be a vehicle for His will, not an obstacle.
CT
I believe it is very hypocritical for anyone to admonish people for using non-abortificant contraceptives while advocating for NFP. This is the point I was making to Jacqueline.
Myrtle,
I always take a prenatal while TTC, pregnant, or breastfeeding. Folic acid is the main reason although the other nutritional support in them is good as well, of course.
Just to clear something up, I’m not “telling God what I’m going to do and making Him subvert me” if necessary. My husband and I have given a lot of consideration as to number of children. I take these decisions very seriously and do my fair share of agonizing before the Throne about them. My point is that although my husband and I feel we have made the right decision, I am willing for God to steer us in a different direction if it is His will to do so. I’m certainly not perfect and don’t mean to propose that I have all the answers – none of us do. I really think, however, that contraception is a grey area that each couple needs to work out with God on their own. I dislike it when other Christians who have moral convictions about grey area items try to spiritually “abuse” other Christians into doing it *their way* when that may not be God’s will for every couple. I know you aren’t doing this but I am speaking generally – I have seen various Christians throughout the years doing this. I know they mean well, but this type of spiritual bullying causes more harm than good, especially to new Christians who are susceptible to this sort of influence.
I didn’t take offense that you suggested a vasectomy instead of a tubal for us. No need to apologize. If you don’t mind my asking, what problem do you and the women you know have as a result of having this surgery? I’d like to discuss it with my OB when I go in. If you’d rather not say publicly, my email address is army.wife2002@yahoo.com .
army_wife,
I take these decisions very seriously and do my fair share of agonizing before the Throne about them. My point is that although my husband and I feel we have made the right decision, I am willing for God to steer us in a different direction if it is His will to do so.
If you pray and get a scripture, that agony can end. Only two things can happen- either you will be affirmed or corrected. You say you are willing to be steered in a different direction, but if you are unwilling to pray, you are lying to yourself.
If this is really just a “grey area”- what are you afraid of?
CT
I believe it is very hypocritical for anyone to admonish people for using non-abortificant contraceptives while advocating for NFP. This is the point I was making to Jacqueline.
Myrtle, I think it could be a case of hypocrisy for some people, but in an authentic Catholic view of NFP, it is your misunderstanding of it as a contraception substitute that makes you view it as hypocrisy. I think the post JoAnna linked to was excellent on this. NFP can be used in a way that is selfish and detrimental to the marital union, but when used with the proper internal disposition, it is not.
Whoa. I stepped away from this thread for half a day and it took off again! First, I think some quotes are being attributed to me that I didn’t say, fyi like “panties in a wad”. I didn’t say that just so everyone knows.
Praxades, you would care if a Baptist preacher was preaching that condoms were okay but not because you would be persuaded. You would care in that you think that is wrong and you don’t want information you think harmful and wrong to be spread about. I understand that, but my point still stands that a Baptist preacher’s words would not persuade you. That was my only point on Pope John Paul.
moving on, all those Scripture verses were great but none of them speak to preventing conception and that being a sing. Onan’s sin was that he promised to raise up seed to his brother and lied by having sex with his sister-in-law but not allowing her to conceive. That doesn’t mean contraception is wrong, it means lying and defrauding is wrong. I do think it is wrong for a husband to refuse to inseminate his wife or a wife to secretly use a diaphragm or something and to defraud her husband. But if both husband and wife choose to contracept in a non-abortifacient way I see no defrauding there and thus no sin.
Praxedes, okay you got me. I did share a very personal thing that I was mad at my husband for using condoms. But not because I think condoms are evil. I wanted a child and felt cheated that my husband would not allow me to conceive another. I would have felt equally defrauded if we were using NFP and he purposefully avoided intercourse with me during my fertile times. I honestly don’t see the difference.
I forget who asked, but I felt attacked not because Catholics were speaking their convictions (have no problem with that) but because there was a lot of “Well protestants do this…” type of accusing going on. And equating what “protestants do” with abortion etc… I found THAT to be offensive and thats why I got a little snarky.
Hi Myrtle. I am still very nauseous. I am 12 weeks now and my bump just popped recently. I am now at that annoying stage of pregnancy where people look at me and wonder “Is she pregnant or just fat?” ;-)
You know what blows my mind? People that won’t accept the first 1930 years of Christian teaching on contraception. This is not a Catholic doctrine- It’s a Christian doctrine. The Reformers opposed contraception, too. ALL CHURCHES OPPOSED IT- This was an accepted teaching but all of a sudden in 1930, the Anglicans knew better and all the denominations followed suit. Now, except for the Southern Baptists and some non-denominational sects, all Protestant denominations support abortion in their platforms (look it up- it’s true). Many have gay clergy as well or support gay lifestyles and gay marriage.
Did God’s mind change in 1930? I sincerely doubt it. It’s more like some denominations were trying to please man and not God- and look at the fruit of it. More divorces, more out-of-wedlock pregnancies, more adultery, more imprisoned, fatherless men- legal abortion.
Everyone should have stuck with God on this one.
I believe it is very hypocritical for anyone to admonish people for using non-abortificant contraceptives while advocating for NFP.
Myrtle, there are a myriad number of non-abortificant contraception and all are not equal so your assertion is a flawed generalization. Exactly what are the criteria? Question for you. Do you deem chastity to be a non-abortificant contraceptive?
Yes Jacqueline because a lot of “protestants” (here we go again) stopped looking to God’s Word for direction, thus the female pastors, the gay bishops, the pro-abortion stance. I am not Southern Baptist (I am far from Southern Baptist) and my church does not support abortion or homosexuality.
Anyone is welcome to worship at my church but in order to be a member one must agree doctrinally with my church. Yet as we bash those evil protestants I am thinking of all those verbally pro-choice Catholics I know. Maybe its best to set your own house in order before attempting to clean up those horrid Protestants.
Hey Sydney -
Praxedes, okay you got me. I did share a very personal thing that I was mad at my husband for using condoms.
I just wanted to say that I don’t think that your choice to share a personal and upsetting thing, in search of emotional support, makes it “someone else’s business” in the sense that you deserve unsolicited criticism. I think there is a difference between asking for support and asking for advice, and I do think you would have been just as upset if your situation involved NFP instead of condoms so I don’t think that this is a situation where advice like “condoms are evil” could reasonably be considered support.
I am happy things have changed for you. :)
Reporting this, not as a challenge but because I’m genuinely curious:
Sydney (or any Protestant) this issue is bigger than which pope said what. Protestant reformers were against contraception. The Christian world was united on this until the 1930?s. I would ask you which Scripture passages Luther, Calvin, etc. used to defend their position. I know Onan’s story in the book of Genesis has been used, for example… And I would ask you why the Anglicans allowed for contraception starting in the 1930?s. I think you sharing Protestant history and its changing teaching on this critical issue would be helpful in this area.
truthseeker
What do you think is the difference between NFP and non-abortificant contraceptives? And why do you think most people who utilize either method do so? If by chasity you mean abstinence then of course abstinence is the best preventative measure but I think you would have to look at the context in which abstinence was being used. An example would be if a couple on occasion decided not to have sex for whatever reason they would just be abstaining but if every month they practiced NFP unless it’s for health reasons it’s probably their method of choice to contracept. And of course that would be their business. And the same holds true for non-abortificant contraceptives if that’s a couples method of contracepting that’s nobodys business but theres. So if your question was an attempt to equate NFP with chasity my opinion is that if your smart enough to know what constitutes a flawed generalization your also smart enough to see the difference between occasional abstinence between a married couple and practicing abstinence according to a schedule to minimize the possiblity of the couple conceiving ,which is of course is there business, so to advocate for NFP above non-abortificant contraceptives on moral grounds is hypocrisy.
Ha! Meant to say ‘reposting’ not ‘reporting’ but my iPhone is smarter than me.
But Myrtle do you still not see that it is the internal disposition that would be wrong in that case – not the abstinence. Not having sex at any given moment (fertile or otherwise) is not wrong. I think what you’re really getting at is, if a couple has an improper internal disposition toward accepting children, does it matter whether they go about achieving their ends via NFP or condoms? My answer would be yes b/c only NFP has the potential to respect the union of husband and wife and order their union in way that respects their fertility. Condoms never have that potential. So even though using NFP as an alternative to contraceptive is wrong, it’s the only method that has the potential to be right. So I still would advocate for it even for couples who plan to use it to avoid pregnancy for non-serious reasons.
It all comes down to intention, as it is with many sins.
If one plots to kill another human being, and does – that is sinful. However, if a person is attacking your family and threatening their lives, and you accidentally kill that person in defending your family – that is not sinful.
Just with NFP, and if you actually research what is taught about NFP, you will find this. If a couple is practicing NFP with just reasons for spacing their children (i.e. unemployment, serious medical issues, etc), then it is not sinful. It is working with the bodies natural cycles and abstaining from sex when conception is most likely to occur. There’s nothing that says you have to have sex every time you’re fertile to try to have kids. However, if you use NFP with a contraceptive mentality and do not have just reasons for doing so, then it is just as sinful if you put on a condom or started taking the pill. It all comes down to intention.
“Yes Jacqueline because a lot of “protestants” (here we go again) stopped looking to God’s Word for direction, thus the female pastors, the gay bishops, the pro-abortion stance.”
Touchy, touchy. This will blow your mind- I was a Protestant when I came to oppose contraception. I also knew many Protestants of that vein as well. Look at my bestie Lauren- we met and agreed on this and neither of us were Catholic. We, like many, simply looked at the fruit of contraception and it was rotten. And when I found out that all Christendom opposed it and I came to a conclusion then that God DID NOT change His mind in 1930, we had just strayed in that regard. This was easy for me to do as I was chaste and unmarried and this didn’t pose a threat to my lifestyle. If you looked at this objectively instead of trying to vindicate your choices, you’d come to the inevitable conclusion that contraception is bad news- because right now, you’re just trying to justify your choices and your plan to mutilate yourself. You are snarky and not making any actual arguments that suggest that contraception is a good thing. All you are doing is trying to villify Catholics.
You’re the only one hung up on denomination. THe rest of us are discussing an issue. This moral issue of sexual morality exceeds labels because -you keep overlooking- all the Protestant reformers opposed contraception. Keep in mind that this whole “protestant” bashing you accuse of is a chip on your shoulder since we have talked about the issue and how Catholics who contracept are just as morally wrong (actually moreso, since they know better) as non-Catholics. What’s wrong is wrong, aside from labels. Look at Pentecostals- if they are right and cutting your hair is morally wrong- it’s wrong if Catholics do it, Muslims do it, Baptists do it. Wrong is wrong. That’s merely are conviction, not a moral absolute whereas contraception are moral absolutes.
Maybe its best to set your own house in order before attempting to clean up those horrid Protestants.
I can’t *make* anyone who comes to my Church or claims to be Catholic live a righteous life, any more than you can assure that everyone you go to Church with is above reproach. Is everyone there perfect and no one goes against the doctrine EVER? I sincerely doubt that. All anyone can do is have correct teaching and make that teaching clear. Imagine two households: one has rules of conduct that state there are no drugs in the house and the other has no such rule. So when a child in the first house does drugs, he knows he shouldn’t and everything is done to correct him. When a child in the second house does drugs, it’s a non-issue although that child is harmed just the same. BUT, the second house points at the first and calls them dirty or hipocritical because they have a standard- that’s what you are doing. So you can’t compare the Catholic Chuch with clear teaching on abortion and homosexuality with every major denomination with a pro-abortion platform that teaches evil. If anyone’s house is unclean, it’s theirs. I beleive there should be consequences for pro-abortion “Catholics” but I also know it’s best to keep them closeby in hopes that they will repent.
I just wanted to say that I don’t think that your choice to share a personal and upsetting thing, in search of emotional support, makes it “someone else’s business” in the sense that you deserve unsolicited criticism
Alexandra,
My pointing out Sydney’s behavior was in response to her comments. If you re-read the posts, it came after some nasty comments on her part. It seems that because you support Sydney’s view on contraception, you also support her behavior here since you indirectly point out my comment but reference zero of hers. If you are upset with or disagree with something I say, feel free to address me directly. I have big shoulders.
Sydney,
After thinking about this today and rereading through the posts, I want to comment more directly to you:
But Catholics like to feel self-righteous and lecture other married couples (especially non-Catholics) about how immoral we are. Well whatever.
Lumping all Catholics together is wrong. You don’t know that all Catholics like to feel self-righteous and I haven’t seen any Catholic here tell you that you are immoral. This is a very hurtful comment.
There is nothing wrong with that and you won’t find the Catholic view of “Its all about getting pregnant or don’t do it!” in the Bible.
Again, another very hurtful comment and one that is not true. This is a lie that the proaborts consistently say about Catholics. If the shoe fits, wear it.
I just think they need to back off. Mind your own business. What I do with my husband in my marriage bed isn’t some Catholic know-it-alls business.
Since the Church disagrees with your view on contraception and some Catholics actually follow Church teachings, in your mind, some Catholics are know-it-alls. I guess we should just follow the teachings of the Church that you agree with. What you said was hurtful and wrong. I disagree with Alexandra that I shouldn’t point out that you are wrong in saying something is not our business when you made it our business. You received support when you needed it (as you should have) but being nasty to some of the same people who supported you then because they disagree with you now is hurtful and wrong. Your husband was not following what the Church teaches and you refer to him as Catholic but then you turn around and tell Catholics we should leave Protestants alone and correct dissenting Catholics. Maybe you should stop referring to him as a Catholic. If your husband comes on here, I’m sure a few Catholics here will talk with him.
While pretending that you are so wonderful since you just never have sex with your husband (BUT you are still spacing children). See how that comes across as self-righteous and I’m sorry, but highly hypocritical.
Please give me example of how I am pretending to be so wonderful. What you do with your husband in your marriage bed isn’t my business but I just never have sex with my husband. Isn’t it hypocritical that you think what I do with my husband is YOUR business but not vice-versa? Anyway, you are wrong on your assumptions about what goes on in my marital bed. I never accept apologies that are followed with the word “but”. Somehow, I don’t feel they are sincere.
it IS my business when you are attacking pro-lifers like myself who use barrier methods.
Again, you make anything about this issue your business but it is no one else’s business that disagrees with you. Please give me examples of what you perceive to be my attacking any prolifer. Please show me exactly what has hurt you or others here.
I wanted a child and felt cheated that my husband would not allow me to conceive another.
Right. Wife felt cheated. Husband would not allow conception. Where did God’s will fit in? Did what He want matter? In many of these situations, one of the spouses will later say on the order of “this is not what I wanted, it’s what you wanted” or “you trapped me” or “I was duped” , etc. because God was not put first. Not good for marriage. Not good for children.
I would have felt equally defrauded if we were using NFP and he purposefully avoided intercourse with me during my fertile times. I honestly don’t see the difference.
Rightly so because he wouldn’t have been using NFP with God’s will at the forefront, but his own will. You don’t see the difference because you are choosing not to see the difference and get snarky with anyone who is trying to steer you in a different direction.
myrtle, I see you asked me a question but forgot to answer mine. You first.
CT
NFP is used for different purposes just as non-abortificant contraceptives are some women use them to space their children some use them not to have children. If any individual uses morality to justify NFP and at the same time condemn contraceptives that are anti-abortificant they are guilty of duplicity. In order to make a moral argument as a Christian you have to have scripture. There is no scripture that condemns preventative measures. Most of the arguments I’ve heard sound like window dressing. And what really saddens me about the continued debate over non-abortificant contraceptives beside it placing a burden on married people that they were not meant to bear is that it seriously detracts from the real issue which is abortion.
Praxedes
If your referring to your 12:28 p.m. post I did answer you. My answer was that I believe God speaks to us through scripture. What are your thoughts?
I’m just saying that nowhere in the bible does it say you can not space or use preventative measures not to have children as long as your not destroying life I don’t see any immorality when married couples choose to space and or prevent pregnancies before they happen.
I know you don’t. And what I’m trying to point out to you is that THIS is the basis for you thinking that there’s no difference between NFP and condoms or other non-abortifacient birth control. You don’t see the difference between NFP and contraception (or sterilization apparently) b/c all, to you, are equally licit means of achieving a licit end, said permissibility to be determined by the couple. We disagree on (a) in what circumstances it’s just to pursue the ends and (b) the means to do so when it is just.
To add to scripture is of course very unscriptural
I’m not even going down that road – just kept it in to show that it’s not Catholics making jabs here. Had I responded I would no doubt be attacking Protestants. Just saying.
“married couples usually have a difficult enough time without being told that the God is against contracepting when that just isn’t in the bible.”
I will not restrict myself to only talking about morality that’s easy for people to work into their lives.
“I’m not sure what internal disposition your referring to contracepting”
It’s the internal disposition of being open to God’s plan and not your own. If a couple has serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy then NFP is the only method for doing so that does not do violence to the marital union by putting barriers between the spouses and rejecting their gift of fertility. If a couple does not have serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy, then their internal disposition is disordered – putting their will above God’s. Whether they choose NFP or contraception, their internal disposition makes their actions wrong.
I know you don’t agree but can you try to understand the distinction being drawn.
Also, I’d like to say that this is the reason contraception inevitably comes up in this debate. A simple question like “Is NFP contraception” gets turned into “Is contraception moral” and the reason for that, if we’re being honest, is b/c people who use contraception think that Catholics use NFP as a get out of marital responsibility free card so that they can have as much sex as they want and avoid pregnancy. Under that view, of course the next step is, well since I’m avoiding pregnancy anyway – might as well do it in a more convenient way so I can have better orgasms, and since I’ve decided I’ve had enough kids, might as well make it permanent, since really what’s the difference, right? And further and further we go down the path of setting our will against God. It starts with the wrong internal disposition and every barrier we place in the way exacerbates it from there.
My question – Hi myrtle, Is God telling some denominations that contraception is wrong and another church that it is okay?
Your answer – I believe God speaks to us through scripture.
My comment – I’ve had enough of this game-playing for today.
Sweet dreams and God Bless.
I really, really encourage anyone who struggles to understand the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding contraception to read Contraception: Why Not? by Dr. Janet Smith. She explains clearly and thoroughly the history of these teachings, the logic and reasoning behind them, and why more and more Catholics appreciate their beauty.
I’ve lived on both sides of the fence. My husband and I were both baptized, raised, and married in the Lutheran church. We contracepted, using the Pill, for the first two years of our marriage. Then my husband began exploring Catholicism, and I followed suit; we ended up switching to NFP and have used it to both achieve and avoid pregnancy since May 2003. The difference has been amazing. We both feel more valued and cherished as partners because we know that the other accepts and rejoices in our completeness when we make love — he doesn’t only value the pleasure I give while rejecting my fertility, and vice versa. We would never go back to using any form of contraception, not for a million dollars.
Wow, another contraception argument. How fun. Notice how many minds have been changed by all this arguing. :)
P.S. Doesn’t hurt anyone if you use non-abortificiant contraception.
Sydney
What are you doing for your nausea? Theres a medication called Zofran I’m not sure if you can take it but it’s excellent for nausea. Ginger root is also good. What they need to invent is something that would work like a cool air humidier and that could be programed like a coffee pot so when you wake up in the morning the wonderful scent of something that lessens nausea would fill your room!
Praxedes
Thanks for the blessing. God bless you too.
The contraceptive mentality is destroying our families, our marriages and our world. if you don’t believe me, look up the statistics. Since 1960, the legalization of the pill, and the mass conversion to the contraceptive mentality in the USA, the moral underpinnings of our country have nearly been destroyed. There are now less than 50% of people living in married households in our country. The increase in sexually transmitted diseases has increased from 2 to 50. Of course we are all familiar with the enormous increases in out of wedlock births, and abortions, and divorce, etc.. The statistics are absolutely staggering and absolutely have come as a result of the sexual revolution which was fueled by the pill and other forms of artificial contraception, sterilization and the attitude that children are a burden, not a blessing.
Some have said that Onanism had nothing to do with the act or “coitus interruptus”, funny isn’t it that YOUR INTERPRETATION does not concur with over 1900 years of Christian teaching.
To put it rather indelicately, when a married couple is using any form of contraception or sterilization to preclude having a baby they are simply engaging in mutual masturbation.
If married couple, Sue and Ron can have sterile sex for the sole purpose of pleasure, then by what contortion of logic can they deny that same right to Marvin and George, two homosexuals? They can’t.
If married couple, Annie and Mike can have sterile sex for the sole purpose of pleasure, then why not allow for group sex or polygamy or hey, why not support the National Man-Boy love association? And if your teens want to have sex, why not? Wow, Harry really loves sheep, well you get the picture?
God did not create the awesome gift of sex in marriage to be sterile. Every Christian denomination up until 1930-something taught that contraception was an abomination. TRUTH DOESN’T CHANGE, IT JUST DOESN’T, NO MATTER WHAT OUR OPINION MAY BE.
Some of you good, well intentioned people keep referring to the Bible; you don’t see it in the bible that you can’t use rubbers, sterilization, etc.. I really don’t think that you read your bibles very thoroughly. THE BIBLE SAYS THAT THE CHURCH (you know, the one founded by Jesus) IS THE PILLAR AND BULWARK OF TRUTH. That’s what the Bible says. So take it to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and all of your confusion on this issue will cease. Pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and discover for yourself the beautiful truths of Christ and His Church.
And PLEASE, don’t say that I am condemning anyone. No way. I am simply pointing out historical, biblical and ecclesiastical truth, in the hopes that someone will start looking in to this moral question a little more seriously.
When I was a young bride and quite ignorant of the Truth regarding artificial contraception, I used the pill. So, you see, I am not condemning any one: I know how the world, the flesh and the devil operate to entice us to want to play by our own rules, always looking to take the easy way out. Even though I called myself a Catholic, in reality I wasn’t, because I was protesting her teachings on this crucial topic. By God’s grace, my sister pointed out to me the link between contraception and abortion, and by God’s grace, I listened. Thank you Lord for my dear sister.
Jacqueline, what you said is true, it blows my mind, too, that people are not looking at the fact that all of Christendom condemned contraception for 1,930 years. All of a sudden THEY get to decide for themselves what is right for them; as if there is no objective TRUTH.
The other thing that is so important here, is to understand that Scripture itself states that we cannot be saved unless we love the TRUTH. Two Thes. 2:9-10 says, “The coming of the lawless one, by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO LOVE THE TRUTH AND SO BE SAVED.”
Objective TRUTH is so very important. We can’t make up our own version of TRUTH. That was the same temptation that the serpent enticed Eve with.
Use your logic and your common sense. WHY did God, Whose love is Total, Free, Faithful, and always Fruitful (Life-giving); WHY did our good God create the beautiful gift of sex?
Answer:
Number 1: PROCREATION
Number 2: Bonding between a husband and wife
If we think we have a better plan, lets at least be honest and tell God, “Look, my spouse and I have a better idea, a better plan. Sorry, Lord, but you are woefully behind the times.”
May God bless you all in your search for TRUE TRUTH.
People are going to do what the want to do and make up rationale for it. All that can be done is to tell them they really *don’t* want to do something because of the consequences- and share the benefits of an alternative path. It’s been made clear what the consequences of contraception are for individuals and society and the benefits of rejecting it. Everything God forbids is forbidden because it’s harmful! The enemy is peddling the same lie that he used in the garden, that God is holding out on us by putting restrictions on sex (how it should be only in marriage, and should be fruitful and unitive). The enemy is trying to lie to you by telling you those restrictions are just there to spoil your fun, (ignoring the pain that comes when we reject these rules). He was lying then- He is lying now. Are you gonna buy it?
Speaking of Satan, his job is to sell you NOW at the expense of eternity. Right now, unmarried people want to have sex. In light of eternity (their future on earth and their salvation), the wise choice is to wait. But Satan is hawking for them to sell their futures for instant gratification. It’s the same with contraception: you don’t want the effort or expense of another baby now. So the benefit you gain is more money and time- but those are bought with limiting your eternal legacy. You can’t take money to Heaven with you- only your children. So you sell your legacy on Earth (grandchildren, great-grandchildren) and an eternity of joy with your children for not having to care for another child for his/her first 18 years. That’s not a good trade.
The enemy loves contraception and how it destroys marriages and families and leads to destruction. And since the death and destruction are so clearly evident, I can’t believe y’all are falling for this. Satan is crafty but this is not even clever.
Oh my- I missed this earlier. It’s just too tasty to ignore:
“And because your not guilty of the greed you assume couples who contracept are guilty of then how many children do you plan on giving a home too.”
Raise your hand if you have heard pro-aborts use this line a MILLION times!?! “How many children are you willing to adopt?” The idea is not to defend abortion, but to paint those who oppose it as hipocrites.
This is the same question, only how many children am I willing to have– and the answer is as many as I have the privilege to bear. Not all women get that privilege, so I would never scoff at it or thwart it. And besides the privilege to carry a child, children are priceless too, no matter who carried them. As of today, there are 3 children I didn’t birth that I am fighting to be permanently placed in my home to escape institions or abuse. I am open to more children no matter how they come to me.
Just like trying to paint pro-lifers as hipocrites if they don’t adopt children, Myrtle’s pathetic attempt to do the same to me failed miserably. And even if I were a hipocrit, like abortion, it has no bearing on whether contraception is right or wrong.
Seriously, y’all- when you spout the same reasons oft-cited for killing children as a reason to prevent them- and you stoop to cliche pro-abortion character attacks, that should be a red flag that maybe what you are defending is not correct.
Wow, another contraception argument. How fun. Notice how many minds have been changed by all this arguing.
P.S. Doesn’t hurt anyone if you use non-abortificiant contraception.
Go back through Jack and see that some people used to contracept and now don’t. Then ask them if they would ever go back to contracepting. I guess these types of discussions (arguments if you must) do change a few open minds.
Did you miss where Sydney said her husband using a condom caused her to be angry towards her husband. Do you think she is the only wife in the world who felt this way? I’d say this anger hurt both of them and their marriage. You can look over old posts to see how much anguish this caused her as well or you can choose to just see what you want to see. The choice is yours.
There are not a lot of non-abortifacient forms of birth control. Most of the chemicals misbranded as contraceptive have multiple mechanisms of action, some of which are abortive/interceptive. The barrier methods and NFP are reliably non-abortifacient.
Unfortunately, people have not been well informed as to how most birth control chemicals operate.
Did you miss where Sydney said her husband using a condom caused her to be angry towards her husband. Do you think she is the only wife in the world who felt this way? I’d say this anger hurt both of them and their marriage. You can look over old posts to see how much anguish this caused her as well or you can choose to just see what you want to see. The choice is yours.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Sydney, but I thought you shared at one time that your anger was because you wanted a second child and your husband didn’t. Not simply because he was using a condom, but because he was refusing to allow you to have another child that your heart truly desired.
I think there’s a difference in a marriage where both parties agree on contraception and one in which they don’t. It isn’t the contraception that’s the issue here – it’s the lack of agreement and harmony in a marriage because of a husband refusing to listen to his wife’s emotional needs.
Jaqueline,
Who said I was afraid to pray? Nobody, and I pray daily. I’m not “afraid” of anything. Except maybe people who misuse scripture to beat other Christians over the head to justify their own foregone conclusions about God’s will (although “fear” really isn’t the correct descriptive for my feelings on this).
The Catholic church is *not* the ultimate arbiter and disseminator of God’s truth. And simply because the church in general (Catholic AND Protestant denominations) have a history of condemning contraception doesn’t automatically make them right. There is also a history in the Church of condoning slavery but we now know that is WRONG. I totally get that unmarried couples should not be having sex and therefore should have no use for any contraceptive method, but I’m married and I’m talking about married folks in the context of this conversation.
God made me for a different function within the Body of Christ than you. I’m not trying to talk you out of YOUR function. Please don’t assume you know what my prayer life is like, my spiritual life, or my temporal life.
Oh, my word…! I’m sure things don’t *always* get this fiery/dynamic when I take an extended hiatus, but sometimes it seems that way!
For what it’s worth: from what I know of the subject, it’s vaguely and tenuously possible (though misleading, depending on the context) to say that NFP *can* function as a “contraceptive” (in the very limited, somewhat pedantic and hair-splitting sense of “preventing conception”–other commenters have already addressed the fact that this is only a small slice of its true and whole purpose)… but one would have to define abstinence of all types (including a life of celibacy, or simply failing to get married) as “contraception”, as well… and that pushes the definition so far as to be silly, IMHO; it’d empty the term of virtually all of its relevant meaning! (My mind boggles to think of leaving my wife in the house and going to the corner store for a newspaper as “contracepting”, simply on the basis that physical distance makes it physically impossible for me to have intercourse with her!)
And I really am loath to wade into anything which even hints at “Catholic vs. Protestant” waters again, but: Sydney (and some others), we’ve discussed the issue of “show it to me in the Bible, or I won’t listen”, already… and you didn’t come close to answering the points offered to you (by several people, in addition to me) then, or now. Case in point: if you can show me where, in the Bible (as per your own standard), the Bible insists that “the Bible alone is to be trusted in matters of salvation” (i.e. “sola Scriptura”), then I’ll happily adopt your standard in that regard. If not, then I’ll kindly ask you to re-think it. Intellectual honesty would demand no less, would it not?
Awesome thread. Really bringing pro-lifers together. :(
And I have to say that every time I read Catholic vs. Protestant arguments, it just takes me back to the days of when I worked with Catholics who thought I was good enough to hire even though they were sure I was going to hell. Such a great feeling.
Praxedes, it was kinda sarcastic, but all I meant is that people using contraception aren’t killing babies or physically harming people. There are a million other things that need to be taken care of before contraception is a issue worth tackling by the prolife movement.
Plus, this thread (like every single thread on contraception) is just vicious on both sides. The anti-birth control people are calling those of us who contracept selfish, comparing married contracepted sex to gay orgies (again!), and all kinds of fun accusations of motives that a lot of us don’t have. Meanwhile, the pro-contraception side is Catholic-bashing and calling people names too. While all this is going on, thousands of real, live, already conceived babies have died.
“There is also a history in the Church of condoning slavery but we now know that is WRONG. ”
There is a major, major difference between the Church condemning contraception and supporting slavery. The difference is that slavery was justified for a short amount of time and done so in an ad hoc fashion; that is, those who wished to own slaves STARTED with teh assumption that slavery was good and then used the bible to try and justify it. This lasted maybe 200 years at most in any sort of significant way. At teh same time, all orthodox Christians REJECTED slavery as intrinsically immoral. So with slavery we have a small amount of people justifying slavery for a short period of time and doing it only because they already were assuming their conclusion.
Contrast that with the condemnation of artificial contraception. ALL OF ORTHODOX CHRISTENDOM rejected contraception as intrinsically disordered up until 1930. All orthodox Christians. It isn’t a small group of them, it isn’t an historical anomaly, it is all orthodox Christians. So in order to believe that contraception is not morally evil, one has to hold that EVERY SINGLE ORTHODOX Christian was wrong up until 1930. They were all wrong and going around condemning something as evil when it was not. Christendom taught an egregiously erroneous belief up until 1930 and were telling people they were sinning when they weren’t. That is what one has to believe in order to accept contraception. This also leads into teh problem that if we were living 100 years ago, every single one of your Churches would be condemning contraception as intrinsically disordered. Think about that. 100 years ago, your Church taught that to engage in a contraceptive act was a grave offense against God. How does one reconcile these facts?
I am not stating any of this to condemn anyone or to be “holier than thou” or anything like that. I am saying this because I hate, HATE sin, and I know that those who love the Lord on here also hate sin. This is a very important question, I mean REALLY important. And it is worth looking into very very seriously because let’s face it, if I am doing anything, ANYTHING to offend my Lord, I want to know! I will reject any behavior I do that offends my Lord if I find out that it is evil. So I mean, to go against the first 1900 years of Christianity… what do you know that those Christians didn’t? What would you say to them to make them see that they were mistaken? What was their mistaken belief in thinking that contraception was wrong? In fact, CAN YOU point to exactly what their reason was for rejecting contarception and see the error?
Take. sin. seriously. Take the claim of sin seriously. This is not something to mess around with and simply assume that one knows all the reasons for rejecting contraception and finds them inadequate.
NFP is not a form of contraception. It’s simply the day-to-day knowledge of a woman’s place in her fertility cycle. That knowledge can be used to achieve or avoid conception. If NFP can be used to achieve conception, obviously it’s not contraception. While couples using NFP can have a “contraceptive mentality”, the fact remains that for NFP couples, each and every sexual act is ordered toward conception. Meaning, there is nothing in the sexual act that prevents conception.
And the idea that abstinence is a “sexual practice” used to prevent conception is ridiculous.
Kel wrote:
Awesome thread. Really bringing pro-lifers together. :(
At the risk of being contrary: discussions about contraception do NOT have to be quarrels, or interweb slug-fests, or any such nonsense of the sort. It’s a relevant moral issue on a host of different levels, even if we abstract from denominational differences (e.g. whether the contraceptive mentality enables the abortion mentality or not, whether the contraceptive mentality undercuts the stability of the family or not, etc.); and it’s not wrong to thrash out hard moral questions on a forum such as this (which is really the POINT of the forum, is it not? It’s not simply and solely an online cheerleading session for pro-lifers–though cheerleading pro-lifers is not at all a bad thing, mind you!). We thrash out such questions on a daily basis, with those who are abortion-tolerant… and it’s possible to do so without demonizing THEM, either. By all means: a silly, dangerous and/or illogical idea should be refuted, and refuted soundly (especially if the consequences of following such an argument are harmful or fatal); but it’s quite possible to attack an argument without attacking a person in the process… or even without losing our tempers in the process.
And I have to say that every time I read Catholic vs. Protestant arguments, it just takes me back to the days of when I worked with Catholics who thought I was good enough to hire even though they were sure I was going to hell. Such a great feeling.
I hope you understand (and we’ve discussed this before, if memory serves, Kel) that your co-workers/employers, to the extent that they believed such things, were BAD (i.e. unsuccessful/failing; not necessarily evil or malicious) CATHOLICS, and even heretics (since the idea that anyone can be sure of another’s damnation was condemned utterly as a heresy, at the Council of Trent), though they were most likely ignorant of true Catholic teaching (as is a lamentably large percentage of Catholics today: I was among their number, for many years).
Again: it’s quite right to remind each other to be patient, to attack problems and not persons, and to keep a firm grip on our tempers, regardless of our personal sense of urgency in these matters. But I think it’d be a mistake–and a provably illogical one–to stifle debate about ethics simply because the issues are hard, and because good people disagree about them.
“I think there’s a difference in a marriage where both parties agree on contraception and one in which they don’t”
Absolutely Kel. That’s why God’s will needs to be put before both the wife’s and the husband’s.
considering it can also be used by a chaste woman to find problems in her cycle, NO IT IS NOT CONTRACEPTIVE. However, it CAN be abused and used for selfish means.
God designed our bodies to follow a more natural means of spacing children, which is what NFP is for….it can be used for spacing children and for delaying pregnancy as well as achieving pregnancy.
Kel says:
You may not be aware of this, but it really does get more than a little nauseating to constantly read that you are not a part of God’s “true Church” and how you must “come home” and how you only “think” you are serving Christ but you really aren’t.
There are a lot of Catholics out there that are not aware that anyone baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is part of the Church and serves Christ.
Jacqueline, I didn’t know you were adopting! Congratulations! Anyone I know?
“Do you believe a husband and wife who have more children than the husband can financially provide for is beneficial to that family?”
First, any person who supports the use of NFP for grave reasons would say that this is a reason it is acceptable to use NFP.
Second, all of the pro-contraceptive arguments are identical to pro-abortion arguments, except “contraception prevents abortion.” Every time you talk about this or that situation meaning contraception is okay, especially like here where you don’t even use the word contraception, your argument could be taken word for word and used to support abortion. I know you don’t support abortion, but that’s one thing that gives me pause about arguing in favor of preventing conception.
Third, you are stepping well beyond “contraception is okay” here to say that sometimes contraception ought to be practiced. Now you are doing exactly what you accuse those who are anti-contraception of doing–you are sitting judgment on another (hypothetical) family and deciding they shouldn’t be able to have another child, that they would be wrong to have sex. There’s a huge gulf between saying contraceptives are okay and saying some people ought to use them. I hope that’s not really what you were trying to say; children are always a blessing, regardless of the circumstances. I don’t believe there’s a circumstance under which a family is wrong to allow the conception of a child. Children have immortal souls, whether they live 100 years or 3 weeks.
Kel…
1) Unemployment
2) New Job and needing to get settled
3) God doesn’t give us more than we can handle. He doesn’t EXPECT us to have children EVERY SINGLE YEAR. He also does NOT expect us to be the Duggars, They are unique.
4) if you had a previous pregnancy that was troubled or premature baby that needs extra care, then using NFP would be permitted for a time……I don’t see the Duggars having any more children after Josie because of the extra care she needs, plus, they have grand babies now.
God does not expect everyone to have 20 kids. But HE did DESIGN the sexual intimacy between a husband and wife for TWO things, which can’t be separated from each other, unless its a grave reason (infertile couples). Unitive and Procreative can’t be separated from each other, its just not possible (except grave reason as I said in the paranthases). God did give women menopause for a reason, too.
Liz from Nebraska says, “Unitive and Procreative can’t be separated from each other…”
Reminds me of an article I once read where the author contended that intimacy / unity without openness to procreation is the equivalent of procreative sexual relations without intimacy.
Kel wrote:
Actually, they were some of the most faithful Catholics I’ve ever seen.
I’m assuming that they have their good points, of course. But “faithful” means quite a bit more than merely regular Mass attendance, membership on parish committees, participation in Catholic devotions and Catholic conferences, and the like (all of which are fine and good, but none of which are sufficient for the fulness of “faithfulness”).
I won’t say more at the risk of exposing their identities, but trust me – these people were NOT ignorant of Catholic teaching on any matter, and were well respected by the Catholic community where I lived.
With all due respect to these people: if they truly believed what you described–that they were “convinced that you were going to Hell [assumably for being Protestant?]”–then they are provably ignorant of Catholic teaching on THIS particular matter. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following, on the subject:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846
(See especially paragraph 846.)
Any “faithful Catholic, not ignorant of Catholic teaching on any matter [which would be stunning, since I know of no other mortal person on Earth to whom such a description could be applied, including the Pope!]” would both know and believe the Catholic teaching that:
Translation: any Catholic who’s under the impression that Protestants (or Jews, or Muslims, or even atheists, for that matter) are “damned by definition” are woefully ignorant of Catholic teaching, and on a matter that’s gravely important.
“In other words, using NFP in effort to prevent pregnancy. Is this correct?”
Yes! And see, this is what it seems to me that NOT A SINGLE COMMENTATOR above who thinks contraception can be a moral action seems to understand. We do NOT claim that contraception is wrong because it is wrong to want to prevent pregnancy. That simply is not what any well-informed opponent of contraception would claim. Rather, it is in the MEANS of the action one takes in preventing pregnancy. It is a question of means rather than intent.
In fact, this is EXACTLY what I am talking about when I talk about taking sin seriously. If one does not even know that the problem with contraception is not in the intent but in the means, how can one be confident in their acceptance of contraception? Honestly, if one can’t even properly articulate the opposing view, what does that say about teh amount of time they have spent making sure they have done everything in their power to not commit and consistently support an action which displeases God? Again, I hate sin and anyone who loves the Lord should as well, and I would be very, very terrified to stand before the Lord on judgment day having come to a different understanding of whether or not a particular action is a sin than all orthodox Christians for the first 1900 years of Christendom without even being able to say what they thought and why I thought they were wrong (and here I am talking about those who think the opposition to contraception is because it is “wrong to attempt to prevent pregnancy” or other strawmen)
“Shouldn’t it be up to that married couple to decide”
Yes! But HOW will they do it is the question, not “whether.”
army_wife,
Stop being incorrigible and throwing daggers of untruth to let me say yet a THIRD time what I already said. God wants you to LISTEN, not talk to Him and tell Him your plans. He knows you won’t receive anything from anyone, so the Holy Spirit will speak to you directly on this. You and no one else. He told you how to listen to Him on this in 3 easy steps:
1. Bind the world, the flesh and the devil in Jesus’ name.
2. Ask the Lord for a Scripture on whether or not you should have this operation.
3. Listen for that Scripture. It is your answer.
The truth is, you have decided to do as you please and won’t take this grace He is offering you because you are afraid that God will tell you no and you won’t get your way. I have no reason to believe you will do this, but I am obligated to offer it. I’ve offered it three times so far.
God made me for a different function within the Body of Christ than you. I’m not trying to talk you out of YOUR function.
I don’t know your function and wouldn’t condescend to guess it, but I know dysfunction is not your function. God does not want you to break your body parts that function correctly. But, once again, you won’t receive this from me or anyone- which is why God is offering you a personal Word from Him to you. TAKE IT.
Jacqueline, I didn’t know you were adopting! Congratulations! Anyone I know?
Thank you- it will require some miracles as it’s international and he has Down Syndrome and I’m single. We have obstacles, but God has prophesied through dreams for years to me and my mother that this blue-eyed blondie is my son, Eli. (God even told us his name). Having worked in adoption and seen the preference for blonde/blue eyed children, I believed that when I adopted, it would be a child without those coveted traits and certainly not while single. Plus, I’m blue-eyed and blonde-haired so all these years I just thought my son in my dreams was my biological child someday after I marry (he sure looks like me). When a child came up on Reese’s Rainbow when I was fundraising for another child- and he was the boy in my dreams- AND he had the name the Lord told us, I know he was my son. We just have to pray and wait for miracles at the moment.
I already have a situation with my godchildren, too that I have to stay on top of in hopes of legal custody someday soon.
Paladin: my anti-contraception, pro-life, Mary-venerating, Church-loving Catholic employers may have been off on that one point, sure. But believe me, everyone I worked with felt that way. The 3 Protestant employees there – all faithful Christians – felt completely out of place and looked down upon.
Bobby, without going into gory details, my husband and I would love to practice NFP (and have tried), but thanks to a wife whose cycle is a complete wreck, and totally unpredictable (as evidenced by the fact that with 2 of my pregnancies, I had no clue I was even 3+ weeks pregnant because I wasn’t technically “late”), we just can’t take that risk right now healthwise or financially.
My husband and I are in prayerful unity on this point. Some of the people on this board can think differently and insist that we’re just not hearing from God properly, but frankly, I disagree.
Kel says:
Then here’s my question: how do any of you know when a woman’s situation (or that of her family) is “grave” enough to warrant delaying or preventing pregnancy?
I find this to be a curious question. I’ve been trying to follow along, but maybe I missed something. We are not called to judge the situation of others and determine whether or not they should have more children or prevent another pregnancy.
Shouldn’t it be up to that married couple to decide?
It is a decison for that married couple. Hopefully they form their decision by prayerfully discerning God’s will.
Kel,
My cycle is a complete wreck as well, and totally unpredictable, but it IS trackable. If you honestly would “love to practice NFP,” I would suggest finding a practitioner of the Creighton Method who can train you. The Creighton Method (also called NaPro Technology) is specifically intended to aid women in tracking irregular cycles. There’s a terrific book on the subject I can recommend as well, The NaProTECHNOLOGY Revolution by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers.
NFP is so much more than the rhythm method (in which your cycles have to be regular or forget about it)!
Anybody who thinks they can do anything other than the wild thing all day (w/o b/c) has a contraceptive mentality. So I guess I am in the clear then.
It seems that because you support Sydney’s view on contraception, you also support her behavior here since you indirectly point out my comment but reference zero of hers. If you are upset with or disagree with something I say, feel free to address me directly. I have big shoulders.
All due respect, Praxedes, you apparently don’t know my views on contraception, nor my own practices. That’s not an accusation or anything; I have shared them in the past, though not recently, so I don’t expect you to know them, but I also don’t appreciate your assumptions.
I spoke to Sydney and not to you because I know that she reached out to people here for support when she needed it, and I didn’t want her to feel as though that opened her up to criticism and that in the future she should be more careful who she leans on. I have no desire to take part in this debate, as I am comfortable with my own sexual decisions, and am neither Catholic nor Protestant, but I do have a desire to make sure Sydney knows she will always have support – not simply unsolicited advice – if she needs it. Certainly if she wants advice, she has lots of people here to turn to! I mean that in the best way. Even at the time Sydney seemed to appreciate the beauty of NFP, but I got the impression that her unhappiness did not stem from condoms but rather would have remained intact even if her husband agreed to NFP instead. I just wanted her to know that that isn’t forgotten.
I have many friends who contracept, in far less “noble” situations than Sydney’s, and I offer them the same open ear. I am not an argumentative person and I prefer to let my own happiness be my strongest argument, but if I see something that may stop a person from asking for help when they need it, I do try to let them know I’m still here.
Kel wrote:
Paladin: my anti-contraception, pro-life, Mary-venerating, Church-loving Catholic employers may have been off on that one point, sure.
Er… surely you agree that this “one point” was rather important, yes? With all due respect to them: it really makes no difference to this topical point (or to their ignorance) whether they prayed 10,000 novenas per day, walked the Scala Sancta on their knees in the pouring rain every week, memorized the Latin Vulgate Bible and the Latin Editio Typica of the Catechism, quoted St. Thomas Aquinas to each other while playing handball, and prayed 200 consecutive rosaries in Aramaic while kissing an Italian painting of the Blessed Mother continuously! If they’re wrong on a serious issue (if your account is accurate–and I assume it is), then they’re wrong… and a billion sacred devotions (all of which are fine and praiseworthy, when done out of true piety) will not remedy that fact. “Sacred Trappings” do not a faithful Catholic make. I would say the same if they fed the poor with their last dime, rescued unborn children by the hundreds, and walked on water between meals; if they’re provably wrong, then they’re provably wrong.
But believe me, everyone I worked with felt that way.
Then “everyone” with whom you worked was wrong.
The 3 Protestant employees there – all faithful Christians – felt completely out of place and looked down upon.
Are you still thinking that this “everyone” was representing Catholicism well? Unless you can find a place in the Catechism wherein it says “Precept #7 of the Church: it is morally obligatory to look down one’s Catholic nose at all Protestants [to say nothing of all non-Christians] at all times, at all costs”, then I’ll have to go with the actual teaching and Sacred Tradition of the Church, which condemns such nonsense unequivocally.
Kel, I apologize if you were not in fact trying to solicit an answer that preventing pregnancy was necessarily good for some couples. Looking back it is not implied in what you said.
I believe that for a family to have as many children as God wants them to have–many or few–is beneficial to that family. I believe God knows better than us what is best for us. I don’t condemn anyone. I think that some people may think that they don’t have enough money but really have enough. I can answer for myself that I cannot see preventing conception due to finances. I cannot think of a situation where I would desire not to have more children more than I would desire unity with my husband. But I can’t answer all of the hard cases for anyone else.
NFP does not involve any action against or within the marriage. If the spouses are in agreement, and it does not lead to temptation to sin, not having sex during a given week cannot be a sin. Now, never having sex would not be good for the marriage, if not fatal. But occasional abstinence by agreement cannot be a sin–there is no set frequency with which a couple ought to have sex, and having sex all the time just won’t work. Abstinence for a purpose is okay, too–for instance, a couple can not have sex in order to get something else done, or have enough sleep. So abstaining to prevent the conception of children when both spouses are in agreement cannot be a sin, because not having sex on a particular day is not a sin.
Barrier methods introduce a third party into the marriage bed. It places something between the husband and wife at their most intimate moment. God did not bind a man, a woman, and a rubber thingie. He bound a man and a woman in marriage.
“No, I don’t support abortion, and since we were discussing contraception and not abortion, I didn’t feel I needed to clarify this in my statement. Killing a child that is already conceived is a whole different scenario than seeking to prevent the conception of another child.”
I am aware that you do not support abortion. I am not trying to suggest that you do. I was just bringing up the point that the reasons for preventing conception are the same as the reasons for abortion. I said that to me that seemed a good reason to be very cautious about promoting the prevention of conception. I do not promote NFP to avoid conception either. I am not saying the actions are identical; I’m saying the reasons are identical. I’m saying prersonally, it gives me pause. If it doesn’t give you pause–fine.
“I truly do not see the difference between use of NFP or condoms in such situations, as the aim is identical.”
This was my stumbling block for a long time, too. But my belief was that NFP for prevention of conception was wrong. However, there ARE extreme circumstances where some people might feel it was best to prevent conception. So there needs to be some recourse. And in NFP, there is no sinful action. Not having sex (by mutual consent) is not a sin. So not having sex by mutual consent because the couple does not want another child cannot be a sin.
“No, actually, I’m not. (I Timothy 5:8 – ‘If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.’) I’m saying that if a married couple decides that their bills and expenses are stretched to the max and that conceiving another child would bring on more financial hardship, they’re not being irresponsible. ”
That verse is about someone who “does not” provide for his family. I hope no one here believes that there is always sin when one cannot provide. I believe this is about those who have the means but let their family members go hungry. But if a man loses his job, and then can’t feed his family, despite trying, or must rely on others’ kindness, he is not sinning in that. If being poor is through no fault of one’s own, it is not a sin. If one is poor by one’s own fault, even, the poverty itself is not a sin.
I ask you, if this same man remains open to more children, is he irresponsible? If he has thought it through and leaves God in charge, believing God will provide?
If he is irresponsible by not trying not to conceive, my comment that you are judging people stands. If you think it’s okay to leave it in God’s hands–after all, He does open and close the womb–then no, you are not judging that family unfairly as you are saying those against contraception are judging contracepting families unfairly.
If you are having midcycle bleeding, it’s possible you have bleeding with ovulation or implantation. Sometimes this can be mistaken for a light period. Charting might make it clearer. I have an irregular cycle myself, and a calendar would rarely tell me when I’m fertile. However, cervical fluids are a very reliable indicator for me. Some people find temperatures very reliable as well. You might want to get Toni Weschler’s Taking Charge of Your Fertility–which is not Catholic at all, more “fertility awareness” than “natural”–and look more into the signs of your cycle. Nothing is foolproof, but it is great to be able to tell some what my body is doing. I don’t chart anymore, but I know a lot about what’s going on.
Are you still thinking that this “everyone” was representing Catholicism well?
No, just the opposite. But I am saying that if Mass-attending, pro-life, anti-contraception, Mary-venerating Catholics who own and operate a very Catholic business in which they were close friends with every priest in the area can be wrong about this concept – well, that’s frightening. Many Catholics (though not all, and on this site included) seem to have a superiority complex when it comes to Protestants. I can count on one hand the number who do not come across as such.
I do remember one lady I worked with finally telling me I’d never get anywhere with her because I just didn’t “get it.” She said, “You believe in just the Bible. I don’t.” Hey, at least she scored points for honesty.
My wife just said she was going to pick up our daughter from school and I told her she was just practicing her contraception.
Jacqueline, congrats–I hope you can bring him home. He is actually listed with the agency we are using for his homestudy, so I’ve seen his picture there too. God bless you. I had figured you were just advocating for him.
“What changed your mind?”
Humanae vitae.
“I’m guessing ovulation.”
If you also avoided sex when you were bleeding, that would prevent conception, I would think.
It probably would be beneficial to get those hormone issues figured out anyway…
I used the words “in denial” because you did–not trying to imply anything personal. I do understand it can be hard to tell sometimes. You would just have to be very cautious; I don’t think it would be impossible.
And birth control doesn’t work perfectly either.
Kel wrote:
But I am saying that if Mass-attending, pro-life, anti-contraception, Mary-venerating Catholics who own and operate a very Catholic business in which they were close friends with every priest in the area can be wrong about this concept – well, that’s frightening.
(*sigh*) Welcome to my world (as a Catholic catechist)! Welcome to the world of post-WW2, post-sexual-revolution, post-Vietnam-era chaos and Catholic catechetical devastation! (If you’d like to hear some impassioned rants on this topic, ask me or Bobby, at very least, and we’ll be happy to oblige… if only you have several hours to spend, and some good noise-dampening ear-plugs with which to mute the screaming!) If you walk away with nothing else from this conversation, please know that the catechesis (i.e. education in the Faith) of at least the past two GENERATIONS of Catholics has been devastatingly, scandalously bad. The vast majority of Catholics (with whom I’ve spoken, anyway) simply don’t *care* about spiritual realities at all; and the ones who do care usually fall into one of two errant camps: the Jansenists/schismatics, who think themselves “more Catholic than the Pope” (and who look down their noses with frosty glances at friends and foes alike who dare to disagree with them), and the “social justice activists”, who use the general “idea of Catholicism” to pursue political agendas (usually to the left of political center) while reserving some of the most libertine standards for themselves (and their allies) in matters regarding, say, sexual morality… and who show the most spectacular intolerance for those whom they deem “intolerant”. After removing all of the above… well… we’re left with perhaps less than 5% (and I’m being generous, there) who are God-fearing, loving, humble, teachable people who sincerely want to grow in holiness and do what God (Whom they love personally and deeply) wants of them.
As I say… welcome to the battlefield, after the bombs fell! But please do not judge the Church on the basis of the devastation of the battlefield, and of the walking wounded (many of whom are ignorant of their wounds); the fact that a spiritual black plague has devastated our ranks does not mean that the army was flawed.
Many Catholics (though not all, and on this site included) seem to have a superiority complex when it comes to Protestants. I can count on one hand the number who do not come across as such.
Two replies to that:
1) To those who genuinely put you (as a person) down for being Protestant, or for believing Protestant beliefs, I can only say that they do so without any mandate from the Catholic Church. They’re doing so on their own initiative, and their blood is on their own heads.
2) I’d suggest, however, that at least some Catholics are truly attacking *issues* (albeit with a great deal of zeal, and perhaps without the fulness of tact on occasion–I’ve been guilty of that, myself, in the past), and not individuals. Even if it’s coarse to the ear (and, I think, ill-advised), there’s a clear difference between, say, calling a particular religious idea “stupid” and calling a *person* stupid. As I say: it’s too fine a line for me to feel comfortable using, but there is such a distinction, at least in some cases… and it’s to the credit of the speakers that they separate the believer from the belief (especially if the belief seems pernicious to them, for whatever reason).
I do remember one lady I worked with finally telling me I’d never get anywhere with her because I just didn’t “get it.” She said, “You believe in just the Bible. I don’t.” Hey, at least she scored points for honesty.
Well… not to put too fine a point on it, but: without commenting on the style or manner with which she said what she said (and, given when you said earlier, I don’t hold many good hopes for that), the specific idea of “sola scriptura not being all it’s cracked up to be” is a valid point to raise… since the Bible nowhere makes the requirement that “the Bible alone is to be used as the rule of Faith”. The very idea of requiring “the Bible alone”, in itself, goes beyond the Bible in order to make the requirement! That’s what logicians call a “flat internal contradiction”… which is something of a problem.
(Honestly: one of the most bizarre phenomena to which I’ve been witness is the penchant for some non-Catholics to hear a Catholic [or Orthodox, etc.] object to “sola Scriptura”, and immediately assume that the Catholic [etc.] is objecting to “Scriptura”! Is it not possible that we object not to the vital and necessary, God-Breathed “Scriptura”, but that we object vehemently to the non-Scriptural “sola”?)
Mind you, I do NOT bring these topics up for mere sport (especially since they can engender hurt and hard feelings so easily–that has happened at least once on this forum, involving me personally). I bring them up because they address issues which are inextricably linked to our common cause: the defense of all human life, from conception until natural death. They are fundamental, and not simply polemical niceties or matters of personal taste.
One side-idea seems to be coming up, again and again, in some quarters of this discussion: the idea that a marriage cannot be fulfilling, cannot be unifying, cannot have full meaning, and (perhaps) cannot even endure without sexual intercourse. Forgive me, but: this is one of the most nonsensical and pernicious ideas I’ve heard, to date… and I think the absurdity can be illustrated rather easily: would you, if your spouse were rendered impotent by some accident (either through disability of the various organs, or by traumatic removal of a member, of the bottom half of the body, or severe brain damage, etc.), divorce your spouse on those grounds? If the marital covenant is as sex-dependent as all that, then surely you would be excused for doing so?
I do not at all mean to demean or diminish the vital role that sexual union plays in the normal course of marital union (especially since the initial capacity for such sexual union is a pre-condition for marital VALIDITY, by Catholic teaching!); but there’s a clear difference between acknowledging a “good”, and making it a “god” (i.e. an idol).
“(*sigh*) Welcome to my world (as a Catholic catechist)! Welcome to the world of post-WW2, post-sexual-revolution, post-Vietnam-era chaos and Catholic catechetical devastation! ”
Tee hehe…yup. Tomorrow I begin teaching 6th grade confirmation classes. I am going to bludgeon those kids. Man, they aren’t going to know what happened… Seriously, I”m so sick of bad catechesis amongst Catholics, and I”m taking it out on a bunch of 6th graders, oh yeah!
Gak!! My dear Mr. Bambino, I doff my derby to you, in taking matters to the mouth of the lion, as it were! (6th grade… brr-rrr!) And I thought I had difficulties with RCIA adults…! At least spit-wads aren’t much of an issue…
“As I say… welcome to the battlefield, after the bombs fell! But please do not judge the Church on the basis of the devastation of the battlefield, and of the walking wounded (many of whom are ignorant of their wounds); the fact that a spiritual black plague has devastated our ranks does not mean that the army was flawed.”
This is a perfect way to describe it. I can say from experience that I emerged from 8 years of CCD knowing so little about my faith that as an adult I purchased a copy of “Catholicism for Dummies” and was absolutely floored by what I learned. My road back has been slow and there’s still so much I don’t know! I credit an Evangelical Christian in college for bringing me out of my East coast CINO fog. He called me a practical atheist who didn’t even understand the religion I was rejecting. Harsh but true – I’m forever grateful to him for pissing me off that day.
Very strange for me to be in that place on a pro-life site…
No stranger than to find yourself among people you disagree with on other issues. We are united by our pro-life cause, but that doesn’t mean we agree on everything. To the extent the conversation comes up, both sides are going to be in the discussion.
as if a condom renders marital unity “less.”
That’s the whole debate – whether barriers or do damage to the fullness of the marital union.
FYI- I have removed most of my comments and will now be stepping out of this conversation.
For what it’s worth, Kel, I enjoyed reading your comments. I think you explain and defend Protestantism very well, in an articulate and accessible way. It’s clear you live your life mindfully and with great consideration to what you do and what may come of it.
No stranger than to find yourself among people you disagree with on other issues. We are united by our pro-life cause, but that doesn’t mean we agree on everything.
I agree CT. Some here would have no problem pointing out that sex before marriage is not the best choice (and some Christians would call it a sin while others would disagree) but are troubled and angered that we disagree on contraception.
just was looking on. didn’t read all the comments, so forgive me if I’m redundant.
Regardless of what you consider NFP, it is not abortifacient, therefore not contrary to being pro-life.
Not to offend, but infallibility of the Pope is not a biblical teaching.
Preventing pregnancy by natural spacing = sin is based upon faulty interpretation of the passage where Onan was struck down for spilling his seed on the ground. He was not killed for spilling seed, he was killed for not obeying the law considering providing a child to the wife of his dead brother.
The bible does say “be fruitful and multiply” but does not specify a specific goal in multiplication. The figurative language is about a quiver being full, but even a quiver has a limit to what it can hold. The bible is clearly about life, about children as a blessing, and not being able to conceive is considered a curse. It also has a lot of beautiful language about adoption. Life is always a blessing. Death is always a curse.
Summation: I understand the bible to teach that it is good to have children. It is not a sin to space them, or have a limited number. It’s good to adopt. Medical research proves that there are protective health benefits from having children, and serious risks if, as a woman, you don’t. And causing the death of another human being is bad.
Oh, and my bible still says fornication, adultery, and divorce are sins.
Jacqueline,
I love Reece’s Rainbow! There was a little girl on there I wanted to adopt very badly, but we don’t even have the money for a domestic adoption, let alone an international one. She’s being adopted by a different couple now, and I am glad for her. Since we are expecting our fourth anyway now, and with a job loss looming on the horizon (in the next year or two… the job *and* the insurance go bye-bye :( )… well, I’m sure that little girl will be better provided for with someone else. I wouldn’t want her to feel “lost in the crowd” of the other four children in the house. She deserves special attention after so long in an orphanage and I’m sure her adoptive parents are very nice.
Congrats on the adoption. I wish you every happiness with your new child!
Oh, and in response to your earlier comment which I just now read – You have no reason to believe I am *not* doing the things you’ve demanded of me with regard to prayer. I’ve seen nothing as of yet in the Bible to repeat what you’ve said about my getting sterilization surgery. Actually I’m leaning away from it – not due to Catholic ideas but because of certain complications I don’t want to run the risk of. I’m still considering the matter. Look, however it may seem, I am not here to insult everyone. Perhaps I come off poorly. I occasionally have difficulty getting my point across in an understandable manner and sometimes I offend without intending to. It’s frustrating to me when I try to communicate and I feel that I’m doing a poor job getting my point across. There’s room for dissention in certain areas of Scripture, and the main reason I chose not to be Catholic is because I disagree on some of these points. Someday when I see God in person I hope I have the presence of mind to ask Him why He didn’t just spell everything out for us so we didn’t have to argue and muddle through things so much. :-) The great thing about God is that He can handle the big questions and problems of life. I’m glad He’s made Himself approachable.
Paladin, I don’t know if I’m the one you’re thinking of saying how important sex is to a marriage, but for the record, I would not divorce my husband if he were no longer able to have sex with me.
I do know, however–due to experiences of not being able to have sex for a long time–that abstaining from sex for a week or longer is not good for my marriage. It puts me in a position of being more tempted. It messes with my mental health because sex helps regulate my hormones. It takes away a major way I can connect physically and emotionally with my husband. I don’t know if it’s just me, but sometimes it gets to seeming like we’re just roommates. The “one flesh” thing is POWERFUL. Would we stay married if we could not have sex? Yes. But it would be much harder. I’ve given up a lot in my life, but giving up sex would be harder than any of that. Again, maybe I’m not normal in that respect, but giving up all of the best sex is not a sacrifice to be taken lightly, IMO.
(Again, my solution is NOT barrier methods. It’s accepting whatever children God sends me. FTR.)
Jacqueline
Congratulations! :)
Jacqueline
I’m so happy for you it really couldn’t have happened to a nicer person. You will be an excellent mom. With some countries being single is not an issue when adopting. I know a lot about Downs’ syndrome because my son has it so if you have questions e-mail me at mjm9352@louisiana.edu. I think it’s awesome that your willing to open up your home to children. Because you already have a home I will be praying that God blesses you with the accomodations you need in case he sends you more than one…. Don’t worry you could command an army if you had to. :)
YCW wrote,
Paladin, I don’t know if I’m the one you’re thinking of saying how important sex is to a marriage,
Actually, I wasn’t thinking about you in the least, when I mentioned that; I’ve thoroughly admired (and heartiny agreed with) your contributions to this thread, in fact!
but for the record, I would not divorce my husband if he were no longer able to have sex with me.
:) That’s to your credit, IMHO…
I do know, however–due to experiences of not being able to have sex for a long time–that abstaining from sex for a week or longer is not good for my marriage. It puts me in a position of being more tempted.
Hm. On the one hand, that makes perfect sense… and I’ll add that it often isn’t good (in general) for married couples to refrain from sexual intercourse for long periods of time without serious reason (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5-6), especially if the decision isn’t mutual. However, St. Paul plainly says that this is a concession to the sexual weakness of the Corinthians (“Corinthian woman” was an ancient world euphemism for “prostitute”, if that gives any colour to the situation), and not a command (1 Cor 7:1-2,6-7); he explicitly says that he’d prefer that they all be as he is (i.e. unmarried and celibate, cf. 1 Cor 7:7-8). I do not say (nor does St. Paul say) that marriage is in any way evil, or that sexual intercourse is in any way evil; but I do say that this puts the lie to the idea that sexual intercourse is any sort of absolute “need, without which persons and marriages would necessarily crumble”. The way some comments were going, readers might have walked away with the idea that “more sex = stronger marriage; less sex = weaker marriage”… which is nonsense. A lack of sexual relations MAY be a symptom of a problem (perhaps a rift, or lack of intimacy), but it need not be.
It messes with my mental health because sex helps regulate my hormones.
Hm. Since I’m male, and since I don’t have your specific physiology, I don’t know how much I can comment on that; but I do know that St. Paul is not making the “concession” (cf. 1 Cor 7:6) because he believes sexual abstinence to be detrimental to the human person (male or female), but because it could undercut the communion between husband and wife, and because (especially) the Corinthians were so sexually weak that they needed special accommodations in order to avoid the “standard” sexual sins of the area.
It takes away a major way I can connect physically and emotionally with my husband.
It can, certainly; and I’d be the last one to suggest that any couple is obligated to abstain permanently (or even for a temporary extended period, without just cause) in such a way; in fact, Catholic teaching on the matter (which is simply 1 Cor 7:3-5, and related bits of Sacred Tradtion, put in modern words) insists that it is immoral for one spouse to deprive the other spouse of sexual relations without serious and proportionate reason; but I’m assuming that we’re speaking of “abstinence by mutual consent”, here.
I don’t know if it’s just me, but sometimes it gets to seeming like we’re just roommates.
I can understand that; I’ve seen that in many couples… though I’ve also seen couples become accustomed to “using” each other to “scratch their sexual itches”. This isn’t directed at you, personally (at all), but: a marriage license is not a license to lust… and lust is not “logically impossible within marriage”. Some people mistakenly think that marriage makes it impossible to sin sexually with your spouse (short of forcing oneself on an unwilling spouse, perhaps), and that simply isn’t true at all. A man, for example, who has sex with his wife simply to please himself (without any concern for using that act to unite in love and self-sacrifice with his wife) is committing “adultery in the heart” against her; he’s using her as an object to gratify himself. Blessed John Paul II once said: “The only proper response to a human person is love; and the opposite of love is not hate, but ‘use’.” There is nothing wrong (God forbid!) with enjoying oneself during sexual intercourse with one’s spouse; but if a man or woman pursues that act for the sake of self-gratification only, then that is sinful.
The “one flesh” thing is POWERFUL.
It is… and it can be powerfully edifying, or powerfully destructive, depending on where we place that burning fire.
Would we stay married if we could not have sex? Yes. But it would be much harder.
Well… I’d gently suggest that it *looks* that way, now; but as years go by, you may find that this apparent “self-evident truth” isn’t really true. No one is saying that sexual abstinence is always (or even usually) easy, especially when a couple has a healthy and younger libido; but it’d be quite wrong to say that the pain and suffering of such a sacrifice (even then) will necessarily be destructive. In fact, if the couple accepts that suffering (brought about, perhaps, because of a medical condition, etc.) as a gift from God which can build up His Church (“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ, for the sake of His Body, the Church”, Colossians 1:24), and offers it up in union with His Ultimate Sacrifice, such sufferings can accrue great merit (which can help build up and purify the Body of Christ), they can strengthen a marriage immeasurably, and they can strengthen each of the members in holiness (which is the whole point of our lives, anyway)!
(Again, my solution is NOT barrier methods. It’s accepting whatever children God sends me. FTR.)
“FTR?” I’ll admit ignorance…
Justlookingon wrote:
Not to offend, but infallibility of the Pope is not a biblical teaching.
:) I’m not offended in the least… but I hope you won’t be offended if I find it to be mistaken! I’d add that the teaching of papal infallibility (and the infallibility of the Church Magisterium, as a whole) need not be “a biblical teaching” (in the sense of being on the face of the sacred text), in order to be true. Last I checked, the immorality of human cloning is not a “Biblical teaching” (in the aforementioned sense), either, but it’s no less true, for all that. (I’d also add that “sola Scriptura”–which underpins such objections–is itself not a Biblical teaching.)
FTR
For the record
And that is all I will contribute to this thread. :)
:) The ignorant member of the Paladin class thanks you, Carla!
Whoops… caught a typo in my comment to YCW, above:
I’ve thoroughly admired (and heartiny heartily agreed with) your contributions to this thread, in fact!
When there are disagreements within the Body of Christ, we know that the Bible does not say: take it to the Bible, but instead, take it to the Church. The notion that all you need is scripture, “sola scriptura”, is a heresy.
1 Tim. 3:15 states, “…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.
A pillar holds something up, usually something heavy, and a bulwark is a defensive wall. The Catholic Church, for over 2,000 years has been that pillar and bulwark of the Truth, holding up the Hard Truth of the Cross and defending the the Truth of Jesus Christ against all who would subvert and attack those Truths.
So, in order to have a well-formed conscience, with which to make good and true moral decisions regarding contraception (or any important question regarding faith and morality) we need three things: Scripture, Tradition (that is the oral teachings of Christ, passed down from the Apostles to the Church), and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, called the Magisterium; which must always be in union with the Pope, the visible head of the Church and the successor of Peter, our first Pope.
If the Bible, itself, said that the Bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth, then I would give more credence to the “sola scriptura” argument, but it does NOT.
The Bible says that the CHURCH is the pillar and bulwark of TRUTH. Historically that is referring to the one Church that Christ established, the Church that Christ died for, the Church that the Bible tells us to take our disagreements to, the Church that is the Body of Christ and cannot be separated from Jesus because He is Her Head, the Church that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit not only wrote the New Testament, but also decided which books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and should be a part of the canon of the scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic Church.
There are approximately 40,000 protestant denominations in the world today. Which one can claim to be that Church that the God/Man Jesus Christ founded? None of them. Yes, many of them have wonderful Christian people attending them, and wonderful ministers who are very sincere in their love for Jesus Christ, but they do not have Apostolic authority, and they do not, therefore, enjoy the protection that Christ affords the Catholic Church, in union with the Pope, from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.
Remember when Saul was persecuting the Church and Jesus said to him, ”Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?” Jesus didn’t say, “Saul, Saul why do you persecute my followers, the Church?” He said, “Why do you persecute Me?” Just as Saul was misguided in his persecution of the Church, many today are misguided in their condemnation of the Catholic Church and Her teaching on contraception.
There are many inside the Church who also rebel against Her teachings, I used to be one of them. So, just as the Church has always weathered attacks from both outside the Church, and from within Her own ranks, She will continue to gracefully fend off these attacks and proclaim the Truth both in season and out of season, whether popular or unpopular (in the case of contraception, very unpopular). The Church holds up and defends the Truth. She proposes, She never imposes. We can either accept or reject these Truths, but they are True nonetheless. Two plus two is always four, even if we think it should be five. With objective Truth, our puny opinions don’t matter.
The issue of contraception is at the root of, not only, abortion, but promiscuity, skyrocketing divorce rates, broken families, the epidemic of dozens of sexually transmitted diseases, the acceptance by society or homosexual “so-called” marriage, and many other societal ills of our day.
The visible head of the Church on earth is the Pope. When people condemn and disparage him, they are messing with the GOD-given authority that Christ intended his Church to have to protect Her from embracing heresies and leading God’s people astray, to the detriment of their souls.
There are many instances in Scripture where God’s people were led astray by those rebelling against God-given authority. One of the most poignant is, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Chapters 16 and 17 of the Book of Numbers. I urge you to read it in its entirety. In a nutshell, for those who won’t have the time or inclination to read it; when Korah, Dathan and Abiram took men and rose up against Moses and Aaron, Moses said, “…IT IS AGAINST THE LORD that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?” They, under the leadership of these three rebellious men, accused Moses and Aaron of exalting themselves above the people, and Moses they accused of making himself a prince over them. But no, it was not of his own accord that he, flawed man that he was, was chosen by God to lead the people out of slavery in Egypt and out of the slavery of sin in their hearts. It was God who chose Moses to be their leader and Aaron to be the high priest.
This rebellion against God-given authority is a pattern throughout Sacred Scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments. It always leads to dire consequences unless people heed the Truth and turn to God through the leadership of those set apart BY THE AUTHORITY given to them by GOD; in the New Testament we refer to this as APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. We still see this pattern of rebellion against God-given authority in the Catholic Church today; and that goes for Catholics who think that they can pick and choose which doctrines of the Church they will ascent to OR NOT, and those outside the Faith who protest the God-given authority of the Church to teach the fullness of Truth that subsists in the Catholic Church alone.
Trust Jesus and His Church to inform your conscience regarding contraception. You will be greatly edified if you do. REMEMBER THAT CHRIST MADE SOME VERY POWERFUL PROMISES TO THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. HE KEEPS HIS PROMISES.
1.
“And I say that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.” Mt. 16:18
IF CHRIST IS TRUE TO HIS WORD, WHY WOULD A CHRISTIAN REJECT THE CHURCH HE MADE THIS AMAZING PROMISE TO?
2.
“I GIVE YOU THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM (notice He doesn’t call it a democracy, but a KINGDOM) of HEAVEN. WHATEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN AND WHATEVER YOU LOOSE ON EARTH WILL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN.
WHY WOULD A CHRISTIAN REJECT THE FAITH THAT HAS CHRIST’S FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO BIND AND TO LOOSE?
3.
Jesus drew near and spoke to them (He is speaking only to the eleven apostles) saying, “All power in Heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; and behold, I AM WITH YOU ALL DAYS, EVEN UNTO THE CONSUMATION OF THE WORLD.”
Mk. 28:17-20
The word ALL in the last line is very powerful. Jesus never WROTE one word of the Bible…..But He did live with and teach the Apostles for THREE WHOLE YEARS. How would the apostles remember ALL that Christ commanded them? Because not only would He be with them ALL days, but later He promises to send the Holy Spirit to remind them of ALL that He had taught them. WHY WOULD ANY CHRISTIAN REJECT THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THAT CHURCH? Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church. See for yourself why the Church condemns artificial contraception.
4.
“I have many more things to say to you (This is Jesus speaking to His Apostles, not to Joseph Smith or Bill Smith or to the minister at Fireball Church of God…yes, I have seen such a denomination with my own eyes), but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into ALL THE TRUTH.” Jn. 16:12-13
Is Jesus a fraud or does the Holy Spirit continue to guide His Church into ALL TRUTH?
In 1930 when the Lambeth Conference O.K.ed contraceptives for married couples it was like opening Pandora’s Box. And surprise, surprise, all the protestant denominations fell for the deception like a row of dominoes. Not so the Catholic Church and wow, did She get beat up for it, both from inside and outside the Church. To me that speaks volumes in favor of believing that Christ’s promises to the Church that He founded are trustworthy and True.
This started out being a very short post. Oops!
Submitted on 2011/09/13 at 1:44 pm
All I can do is shake my head at this post in sadness and disbelief. I cannot believe anyone “liked” it. I actually feel nauseous after reading it. I’m truly in disbelief that people actually think this way – not the parts about contraception, but about the Bible.
Just… wow.
And that’s all I’m going to say.
Sorry, which post is this, Kel? The most recent one?
Oh oops, sorry, got it.
NFP is by definition *not* contraception. Contraception –mechanical or chemical — by definition and by intention interferes with the normal and natural functioning of the body and the reproductive organs, turning them away from their intended use. The intention is to do exactly that. The marital act continues, but it has been de-natured and rendered incapable of achieving the purpose for which it was designed. This is intrinsically evil.
NFP, on the other hand, merely restricts the timing of the marital act. The act itself remains open to life. The marital act retains its intrinsic nature. There is nothing intrinsically evil about reading a calendar or using a thermometer. Hence, NFP is most emphatically *not* contraception.
Can NFP be abused? Can people be selfish? Then the sin would be selfishness, but if only NFP were used, not contraception.
Kel at 1:44pm on 9/13.
I don’t get it. I’m not a theologian or a rocket scientist but I do believe it is very poor communication to say things like “that’s all I’m going to say.” Why even say anything if you are not going to clarify. Reminds me of middle school “I know a secret but I can’t tell you” or “you probably should know this but I can’t tell you.”
Kel, if you believe there is something in someone’s post that is hurtful, untrue and makes you nauseous, I would think you’d want what’s best for that person and others here to point it out so that they may learn and change if they agree. Pointing out things you disagree with is not easy and others can be nasty but some of us learn this way. I and most regulars have been on both ends of the stick and neither end is much fun.
I know I’ve stated before that I’ve learned so much from others here. I don’t enjoy conflict but I think we all, including the proaborts, have much to teach and more to learn from each other.
I for one am interested in clarification and enjoy reading your posts. You contribute a lot and are a very compassionate person.
Kel, I am a Catholic and I get why you are in disbelief about that post. If there is anything in catechism that was not in agreement with scriptures then I would believe the scripture first. As I see it, the Catholic church relies heavily on scripture and especially on Jesus’ teaching in the scripture as the basis for the truth of everything they put in the catechism. So in that respect all church teaching is subservient to the Word of God because without the Word of God there would be no basis from which to guage the truth.
On a different thread Ezek1319 pointed out to me Paul’s teaching about the Sabbath and how the Church’s teaching that a Catholic missing church on Sunday is a mortal sin. Right now I am in prayerful meditation on this and I am reconciling it by seeing that Paul’s teaching leaves room in the Body of Christ for bith those who honor the Lord’s day by attending church services and also room for thise who do not. I am struggling with apparent inconsistencies in the church’s stance and Paul’s teaching. Without fail I find that the Holy Spirit has always lead me to symbiotic union with the teachings of the catechism. If it did not, then I would defer to the church because it has always been right; but I would also would not stop bringing it up with priests and other faithful till those differences could be reconciled.
Bottom line for me is that if the church ever stopped being able to use the scriptures and Jesus’ teaching to justify their positions then I could not in good conscience follow them.
TS- thanks for that response. Gives me hope! :)
Praxedes, Truthseeker nailed what I was talking about. The way the Bible was denigrated in the post truly shocked me Nd made me feel disgusted.
Thanks so much Kel and truthseeker.
actually keep holy the sabbath day is pretty straight forward. when Jesus rose from the dead, that day was now the sabbath – superseding the Jewish sabbath of Friday night to Saturday day with Saturday night to Sunday day.
when we break one of the 10 commandments deliberately, that is a grave sin. Grave sin is a mortal one, and that is what we need to avoid – not only the small sins but the big ones that break our bond with God, the Body of Christ and Church. Some sins are deadly (mortal) others not (venial). But all sin is to be avoided, because we are all called to holiness. “Be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.”
wondering about your Sunday obligation? Keep it. Keeping Holy the Sabbath Day is important. It is our day to adore God and give Him praise. Our day to rest in Him. And for Catholics, our day to receive Him in the Holy Eucharist. It’s good. It’s important. It’s what He told us to do.
I did not see any denigration of scripture. Aside from the overuse of caps, I thought it was a pretty accurate description of scriptural support for the Catholic belief about the authority granted the Church by Christ. Of course Catholics rely heavily on scripture. It’s just not the only thing we rely on.
Yes CT, but Catholics cannot place any of their doctrine or traditions over scripture. If it goes against scripture then there is a problem. Church teaching should not and must not contradict the Word of God. It is possible that somebody would disagree with the Church’s interpretation of a particular passage. But the Catholic Church never intentionally goes against scripture when formulating any of her doctrine or traditions. I challenge you to show me one case where the church used any authority granted to it in order to justify something that was against scripture. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Catholic Church uses scripture to substantiate her doctrine and traditions.
CT, are you saying that reliance upon God’s written Word, the Holy Bible, is not enough?
I’m trying to get my head around this, because it seems that the statement “It’s just not ALL we rely on” could be taken as a perceived insult to Protestants and to the Word of God.
TS, you are truly the first Catholic I’ve ever spoken with about this who has said the things you’ve said: that if Church dogma does not line up with Scripture, it should be discarded. It is very encouraging for me to read that.
I would say that I believe there are many Catholic doctrines which have misinterpreted or overemphasized certain parts of Scripture. I feel it is crucial to understand and interpret Scripture in cultural (Jewish) context as well as with correct life application. For example, I’ve never understood the extreme (in my opinion) veneration of Mary and the other saints despite the fact that I have truly tried to find where the CC has pulled such views from through extensive research. I have read the Catholic explanations, and I simply do not agree with the interpretations.
I worked at a business which sold Catholic items like books, medals, statues of St. Joseph (wow, everyone selling a house wants those – we couldn’t keep enough in stock), statues of Mary, etc. The one person I did not see emphasized was Jesus Christ. I am thankful for a coworker who convinced me to look into the Pill and find out what it truly does, and not long after, I quit the Pill and never regretted it. But beyond that, I have to be honest and say I did not feel like I was working in a Christian environment. This is just my own personal experience in the past – I’m not saying this is how it is for Catholics everywhere.
joy,
I agree with you on the importance of not breaking any of the ten commandments. And as a Catholic I feel obligated to conform my actions, as much as possible, to the catechism. The part I am meditating on is the ‘mortal sin’ aspect, since Paul’s teaching seems to imply that celebrating the Lord’s day in any specific way should not be ‘required’ of all the Christian faithful and that what is most important is that all are giving thanks and praise to God. And if not required of all the faithful then why should it be deadly for the Catholics in order for them to comply with the teaching of giving thanks and praise to God. According to Paul’s teaching, keeping holy the Sabbath means keeping it a day of thanks to the Lord wherever you are and whatever you do. It is the Catholic faithful to which the Church has designated that a part of keeping the Sabbath holy must include attending Catholic church services.
Also note the passage below:
“Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”* He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.* If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect,* go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Matt 19:16-20.
Notice that all the commandments Jesus mentioned that need to be followed are part of the 10 commandments. None of them are cultural ordinances or laws from the time of Moses and the commandment about keeping holy the Sabbath is not one that Jesus specifically listed. But I would be personally obliged anyway under the commandment to honor your mother and your father because Jesus does specifically mention it and my dad always insisted I go to mass on Sunday when I was living under his roof.
And on a side note don’t you think the Lord would be just as satisfied if somebody skipped church services on the Sabbath and instead used the day to give Him thanks and praise by selling everything they owned and giving it to the poor instead?
Kel,
Jesus often spoke of the importance of honoring your mother and your father. Therefore we can safely assume that Jesus honored his mother the Virgin Mary. If Jesus had no problem honoring her then why should you? And Mary’s part in the salvation of mankind is inextricably linked to God’s plan for our salvation. And if God used Mary to deal a death blow to Satan then why shouldn’t we call upon Mary and praise her for her part she played in our salvation?
TS, you are truly the first Catholic I’ve ever spoken with about this who has said the things you’ve said: that if Church dogma does not line up with Scripture, it should be discarded. It is very encouraging for me to read that.
Kel, I am not a scholar of scripture (or the teachings of the catholic catechism) by any means but the Holy Spirit seems to guide me to the passages that are relevant to my life on an almost daily basis. I am not aware of any Catholics who would say that Church dogma does not line up with scripture. That is probably why they never said that it should be discarded either. But to be sure, certain truths transcend time and are immutable and unchangeable (The truth of the Trinitarian God comes to mind). On the other hand my understanding of dogma is that dogma is changeable.
I worked at a business which sold Catholic items like books, medals, statues of St. Joseph (wow, everyone selling a house wants those – we couldn’t keep enough in stock), statues of Mary, etc. The one person I did not see emphasized was Jesus Christ.
Kel, all catholic veneration is Christocentric. We join the angels and the saints in prayerful communion precisely because they lived in exemplary veneration of Jesus.
I am not aware of any Catholics who would say that Church dogma does not line up with scripture.
I’m not either.
(*ergh*) Why do these deep discussions always happen when I’m most limited in time? Whole *books* have been written about these matters, by people much better than I…
Let me try to address a few key points… and I’ll try to do so as delicately as I can, since I know that this treads through deep and passionate matters of the heart (as well as deep matters of the “head”). If any of this comes across as negative or demeaning, please know that that’s light-years from what I intended!
Kel wrote:
(…and as an aside, Kel: one of the reasons I write back to you so often, on this point, is that you’re one of the most level-headed, fair and compassionate people with whom I’ve spoken on this point [and most other points, actually], and it makes things quite a bit easier!)
CT, are you saying that reliance upon God’s written Word, the Holy Bible, is not enough?
Yes… since God’s Written Word is not the totality of what He’s given to us, and He says so, even in the Bible, quite plainly. (Quotes available on request.) You and I would both say the same to anyone who asked, “are you saying that reliance upon the Old Testament alone isn’t enough?”
I’m trying to get my head around this, because it seems that the statement “It’s just not ALL we rely on” could be taken as a perceived insult to Protestants and to the Word of God.
I can see how it’d be challenging; but you’ll need to help me understand how it could be taken as an insult, either to Protestants or to the Word of God. Can you help me out, there?
TS, you are truly the first Catholic I’ve ever spoken with about this who has said the things you’ve said: that if Church dogma does not line up with Scripture, it should be discarded. It is very encouraging for me to read that.
I’m very sorry that you’d not heard that from the lips (or typewriter) of any Catholic, before! Had I known, I’d have said so in big, neon letters! No faithful and well-informed Catholic (note the heave qualifiers!) would say otherwise.
I would say that I believe there are many Catholic doctrines which have misinterpreted or overemphasized certain parts of Scripture.
You’re not alone in believing that. To that, I reply (treading as delicately as I can): such a claim needs proof, and proof beyond anyone’s “feelings” (which can be deceptive and treacherous–see Jeremiah 17:9). I know, from personal experience (with my wife, for example), that my feelings can be hurt, and I can be angry and outraged over something she did… that was totally right (and I was totally wrong). No malice needed to be attributed to me; my own ignorance, cluelessness, or even the fact that I grew up in a different “family culture” (which used words quite differently, and where certain actions implied very different things) was sufficient to explain the matter! That’s why, if we’re to face this issue at all (whether on this forum, or elsewhere… and I don’t see how any honest person could REFUSE to face this issue, sooner or later), we need to do so with raw logic and reason, even if it sometimes seems tedious, tiresome, etc.
I feel it is crucial to understand and interpret Scripture in cultural (Jewish) context as well as with correct life application. For example, I’ve never understood the extreme (in my opinion) veneration of Mary and the other saints despite the fact that I have truly tried to find where the CC has pulled such views from through extensive research. I have read the Catholic explanations, and I simply do not agree with the interpretations.
The Catechism’s job is not to explain all Catholic devotions and sentiments (though it does wax poetic and beautiful, at times); its job is to clarify the core doctrines of the Faith. One can, for example, attain salvation without having a particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary (though I know of no canonized Saints who did NOT have that devotion… and it’s not something to dismiss lightly); but it’s a very different thing for someone to say that such devotion is “wrong”. The first (“conscious devotion to Mary is not strictly necessary for salvation”) is a matter of practical application; the second (“it is false to say that Catholic devotion to Mary is wrong, in general”) is an article of the Faith. To say that one doesn’t “feel” devoted to Mary is not a heresy; to claim that all such devotion to Mary is “wrong and contrary to the Christian Faith” is a heresy, for example.
These issues rarely reduce themselves to “sound-bites” (which is frustrating, since many anti-Catholic canards and accusations *do* reduce themselves to “sound-bites”; it takes far longer to answer them than to throw them), but here’s a short version of the idea, given by Dr. Scott Hahn (a fiercely anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister who became Catholic after studying the early Church):
We know that we are supposed to become like Jesus, in all things (except omnipotence, etc.); He is our model, and we are to do as He did. We also know that He kept the commandments perfectly… including the commandment to “Honour thy mother”; Jesus honoured Mary (His mother, the Mother of God) perfectly… so it’s no stretch to say that we should, as well.
No one forced God to lead us to ask for prayers of each other, and to beg intercession from the Saints. God freely CHOSE to set up the world that way. We ask the Saints’ prayers because GOD WANTS US TO DO SO. Consider the logic of the situation: if God had wished only for a “me-and-Jesus” situation for all believers, then why not only have one “greatest commandment” (Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God, [etc.]), and not the second (“Love thy neighbour as thyself”)? We are saved not as individuals, but as One Body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:4-6, etc.; we are saved through our incorporation in the One Bride of Christ, Who is His Body.
Re: your emotional reaction to the statues of Mary, etc., at the bookstore (and DON’T get me started on the *pagan* practice of burying the statue of St. Joseph upside-downin order to see a house! Grr-rrrrr….!!!): it’s very possible for some Catholics (especially “cultural Catholics”, who are largely ignorant of the Faith, but who grew up with devotions learned from a beloved grandmother, etc.) to go to excess, or to treat even good devotions in an imbalanced manner. If you’d like, I can recommend some good and balanced books (which are fairly short, with short “encyclopedia-like” sections about various devotions and their meanings) on the topic.
I am not aware of any Catholics who would say that Church dogma does not line up with scripture.
Bingo. And I didn’t see anything in Theresa’s post that said otherwise. Scripture needs to be interpreted. It’s either going to be interpreted by individuals (and result in the thousands upon thousands of Christian denominations we see). OR Christ left us with a teacher on Earth that He vested with the authority to interpret scripture and, guided by the Holy Spirit, teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals.
Kel says: CT, are you saying that reliance upon God’s written Word, the Holy Bible, is not enough? I’m trying to get my head around this, because it seems that the statement “It’s just not ALL we rely on” could be taken as a perceived insult to Protestants and to the Word of God
What I meant by ‘it’s not ALL we rely on’ is that we don’t rely on each individual to read and interpret scripture and count on each to do it equal justice. Christ left us his Church. We rely on her. We believe Christ will guide her infallibly to teach on matters of faith and morals, informed by scripture. Nothing in Catholic teaching violates scripture.
Several people have explained to you that Catholic teaching does not and CAN NOT contradict sacred scripture. But, you seem very determined to be insulted by…by I don’t know what….basically that Catholics are not Protestant. If not believing that sola scriptura is correct is an insult to Protestants then not believing in the authority of the Church is an insult to Catholics. Neither is – it’s just the essence of the difference between us.
Truthseeer says: I challenge you to show me one case where the church used any authority granted to it in order to justify something that was against scripture. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Catholic Church uses scripture to substantiate her doctrine and traditions.
No no – I agree with you. I just didn’t think that Theresa said anything to the contrary in her post.
Truthseeker says: ” On the other hand my understanding of dogma is that dogma is changeable. “
My understanding is the opposite – that when the Church teaches something as dogma, they are teaching that this it is an infallible, unchangeable Truth that all faithful Catholics must believe. Can someone clarify?
” On the other hand my understanding of dogma is that dogma is changeable. “
No, by its very definition, dogma is truth revealed to us by God, and hence unchangeable. If something is dogma, it is de fide- it can and will NEVER be changed. You may be thinking of different LEVELS of theological certainty regarding revealed (or speculative) truths. The best treatment of the different levels of theological certainty is found in the Introduction to Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” which is THE standard on teh subject. IN addition to laying out pretty much all of the major doctrine of teh Catholic Church, Ott labels each doctrine with its level of theological certainty (de fide, Sent. fiedei proxima, etc.). But these levels of theological certainty are explained in the first 10 pages of teh book. I highly, HIGHLY recommend ANY Catholic to own this book. It is essential for a Catholic. But this book does make it very, very, very clear that when something is raised to the level of a dogma, it is non-negotiable and can never nor will it ever be changed. Hope that clears that up.
Thank you Bobby and CT for your comments. You are right, dogma does not change…….because Truth does not change.
Have a wonderful day!
Ack! Speed-typing is lethal! Here’s what I meant to write:
No faithful and well-informed Catholic (note the
heaveheavy qualifiers!) would say otherwise.the *pagan* practice of burying the statue of St. Joseph upside-down in order to
seesell a house!Yes, the practice of burying a statue of St Joseph in order to sell your house is superstitious nonsense which has no basis in historical Catholic tradition. I don’t know why that seems to be the only thing that nominal Catholics seem to “know” about Catholicism, but it isn’t even correct!
Yes… since God’s Written Word is not the totality of what He’s given to us, and He says so, even in the Bible, quite plainly. (Quotes available on request.)
I’m requesting quotes! :D
You and I would both say the same to anyone who asked, “are you saying that reliance upon the Old Testament alone isn’t enough?
That’s because the Gospel message found in the New Testament through Christ is obviously the only way to the Father, as Christ Himself said. HE is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So, you’re correct because the O.T. – while pointing to Christ throughout – does not contain the Gospel message of Christ’s death and resurrection.
Most of the doctrines I find that are questionable in the CC came about a few hundred years (at LEAST) after Christ and the establishment of His church. That’s “church” with a little “c” because I’m not referring to the Roman Catholic Church here, but the universal church, the body of Christ.
but you’ll need to help me understand how it could be taken as an insult, either to Protestants or to the Word of God.
Because I do not believe in adding to the Word of God. To me, that’s like saying you don’t believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ is enough to save. And from what I’ve seen and learned of the CC, it appears that way.
To that, I reply (treading as delicately as I can): such a claim needs proof, and proof beyond anyone’s “feelings”
How about the Greek and Hebrew translations and what was commonly, culturally known at the time – not speculation by Origen or Augustine or others who came hundreds of years later and added to things in Scripture.
One can, for example, attain salvation without having a particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary
The fact that you have to point this out is what disturbs me. Salvation is found in none other than Jesus Christ. Of COURSE we “can attain salvation” without devotion to someone other than Christ! (Although I don’t think I’d say “attain salvation” as it implies “righteous” effort on our part toward salvation as opposed to righteous works as a result of our salvation through Christ.
To say that one doesn’t “feel” devoted to Mary is not a heresy; to claim that all such devotion to Mary is “wrong and contrary to the Christian Faith” is a heresy, for example
Historically, when do you believe this devotion to Mary began within the church? And why is it that I so often hear her referred to as “co-redemptrix” and “co-mediatrix?” When did those two particular terms come to be used?
We also know that He kept the commandments perfectly… including the commandment to “Honour thy mother”; Jesus honoured Mary (His mother, the Mother of God) perfectly… so it’s no stretch to say that we should, as well.
Pardon me for saying so, but this IS a huge stretch, and if it weren’t so sad that intelligent people believe this, it would make me laugh. And I’m familiar with Dr. Hahn, back from my days of working at my old employer’s. They pretty much worshiped the ground he walked on. Look, we can take a whole lot of stuff out of the Bible and “assume” and “stretch” it and twist it to mean what we want it to mean, but that doesn’t make it true, nor is that being historically accurate. It’s adding in doctrines that were certainly NOT put forth by the early church – not until hundreds of years after Christ.
No one forced God to lead us to ask for prayers of each other, and to beg intercession from the Saints. God freely CHOSE to set up the world that way. We ask the Saints’ prayers because GOD WANTS US TO DO SO. Consider the logic of the situation: if God had wished only for a “me-and-Jesus” situation for all believers, then why not only have one “greatest commandment” (Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God, [etc.]), and not the second (“Love thy neighbour as thyself”)? We are saved not as individuals, but as One Body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:4-6, etc.; we are saved through our incorporation in the One Bride of Christ, Who is His Body.
Again… you’re kidding me, right?? The saints are dead, if you’ll pardon me for saying so. I ask living people to pray for me here on this earth, but I do not communicate with the dead or with those who have passed on. Deut. 18:11 – “10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.” And as for the line I so often hear about how the saints are “alive in Christ,” this is correct, however, Jesus Christ is the “one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
Because I do not believe in adding to the Word of God. To me, that’s like saying you don’t believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ is enough to save. And from what I’ve seen and learned of the CC, it appears that way.
So you’re insulted that we’re not Protestant. Anything other than adherence to sola scriptura is going to be an insult in your book.
Well, so maybe the best way to distinguish this difference is to say that Catholics believe that the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” is fully revealed in BOTH scripture and tradition; in other words, we simply disagree about HOW God has revealed the Gospel to us. So yes, we would say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ saves us, but we disagree about what constitutes the Gospel of Christ.
Kel,
Jesus often spoke of the importance of honoring your mother and your father. Therefore we can safely assume that Jesus honored his mother the Virgin Mary. If Jesus had no problem honoring her then why should you?
I believe that Mary HAD a pivotal and important role for mankind. Her faithfulness to God’s plan is important. She humbled herself and brought the Messiah into the world. I honor what she did. And I honor my own parents.
And Mary’s part in the salvation of mankind is inextricably linked to God’s plan for our salvation.
Mary had a part to play – a very special part – as she was a vessel He used. A person who submitted to the Lord’s will. But she does not save us. Her Son did that.
And if God used Mary to deal a death blow to Satan then why shouldn’t we call upon Mary and praise her for her part she played in our salvation?
The promise to Eve in Genesis 3:15 is this: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush[b] your head, and you will strike his heel.”
This Scripture is referring to Eve as the woman, and is emphasizing what Christ will do. Not his earthly mother. Nowhere in Scripture is the mother of the Messiah so emphasized and venerated as she is in the Catholic Church.
We are not told in Scripture to “call upon Mary” or “praise her.”
Just found this link, too, which talks about the Catholic perspective of praying to the saints. http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp It appears to take the view that whenever “saints” are referenced, it means those already in heaven or those venerated by the CC. This does not line up with what the NT says about “saints.” http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=130
So you’re insulted that we’re not Protestant. Anything other than adherence to sola scriptura is going to be an insult in your book.
I would be one who would be very afraid if I added to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Period.
Sorry to walk into another good debate!
“Historically, when do you believe this devotion to Mary began within the church?”
Hi Kel,
First let me say that I really enjoy reading your posts because your thoughts and arguments are so well thought out, clearly stated and charitable. Thank you!
This is not from the Bible, but it might answer your question anyway.
http://www.catholic-defense.com/
“EPISTLE TO ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE” by St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 1st century A.D.)
“We are deeply grieved at thy delay in strengthening us by thy addresses and consolations. If thy absence be prolonged, it will disappoint many of us. Hasten then to come, for we believe that it is expedient. There are also many of our women here, who are desirous to see Mary [the mother] of Jesus, and wish day by day to run off from us to you, that they may meet with her, and touch those breasts of hers which nourished the Lord Jesus, and may inquire of her respecting some rather secret matters. […] But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity. And such reports as these have greatly excited our emotions, and urge us eagerly to desire a sight of this (if it be lawful so to speak) heavenly prodigy and most sacred marvel. But do thou in haste comply with this our desire; and fare thou well. Amen.”
If Jesus Christ is the one mediator, can you ask your friends to pray for you?
And Bobby, if you believe that anything other than faith in Jesus Christ is what saves, then yes, I’d say we have a different view of what the Gospel is.
The article from Catholic Answers is specifically talking about saints in heaven, yes, but that does not mean that Catholics do not use the word saint to only, exclusively refer to those in heaven. Indeed, as your other article correctly pointed out, teh word simply means “holy one” or one who is set apart. Well, in that sense, yes, we are all saints because we are all set apart, consecrated to God through our baptism. But for the most part in the English language today, teh word saint is used to refer to those in heaven.
“… if you believe that anything other than faith in Jesus Christ is what saves…”
Well, unfortunately again here I would guess that we have a different definition of faith, but I can certainly say that faith in Jesus Christ is what saves and is teh only thing that saves.
If Jesus Christ is the one mediator,
“If” He is? “If?”
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3316&t=KJV
If you look here, you’ll see that the word for “mediator” consistently refers to Christ in the New Testament. So, He IS the one Mediator between God and man. Also, in this passage, you will see that Paul urges us to pray for the salvation of others. He’s not asking people in heaven to do it, he’s asking US to do it.
can you ask your friends to pray for you?
As long as they’re not dead yet, sure.
Okay Bobby, I’ll bite – what do you believe “faith in Jesus Christ” means?
But for the most part in the English language today, teh word saint is used to refer to those in heaven.
And I think that’s the problem here – this is why people have a wrong understanding of what “saint” meant to the writers of the New Testament. They’re attaching their own understanding of the word as is commonly used today.
the *pagan* practice of burying the statue of St. Joseph upside-down in order to see sell a house!
Forgive me for saying so, but I see a lot of things I’d consider “pagan” practices incorporated into the CC. :(
Guys, let’s focus on saving the babies. Our own salvation, if we believe in Jesus, is already bought for us by His precious blood. SIMPLE.
IT’S THE BABIES. FOCUS.
I don’t think you understood what I meant by “if.” That is partly my fault. I do sometimes have trouble explaining what I am trying to say.
Jesus is the one mediator between God and Man. How do you justify asking your friends to pray for you, since this is so? (Notice how it became more accusatory? I was trying to avoid that earlier.)
Sorry I missed the rest of your post!
The question is still why would it be ok for you to turn to your friends, who are alive, and ask them to mediate between you and God by praying for you? You mentioned earlier that you have heard the argument that the “dead” who are in heaven are “alive” but don’t accept that as a reason for asking them to pray for you. Why?
The question is still why would it be ok for you to turn to your friends, who are alive, and ask them to mediate between you and God by praying for you?
They’re praying for me, not mediating between myself and God.
And because the Bible specifically states that we should pray for each other.
Guys, let’s focus on saving the babies. Our own salvation, if we believe in Jesus, is already bought for us by His precious blood. SIMPLE.
I agree with you, Courtnay. It becomes increasingly difficult over time, however, to simply ignore the fact that other pro-lifers think you’re going to hell because you don’t agree with them on what their church states about non-abortifacient contraception (among other things). That’s how this conversation got started – by talking about NFP and contraception.
So I need to be prudent here- I just wrote a long reply, but deleted it because I am quite busy today and can’t be devoting a lot of time right now. But actually, I do want you to know that I wasn’t trying to bait you with the faith definition.
But actually, I do want you to know that I wasn’t trying to bait you with the faith definition.
No, I know that. :) But I asked because you said we had differing definitions of that, too, so I figured I might want to know what yours is!
It becomes increasingly difficult over time, however, to simply ignore the fact that other pro-lifers think you’re going to hell because you don’t agree with them on what their church states about non-abortifacient contraception (among other things).
Kel, you’re the one telling Catholics to be afraid. You don’t have to agree with what the Church teaches, but when the topic comes up, we ARE going to give our reasons for believing that. You are the one taking it as a personal attack as though you are shocked to find out that Catholics and Protestants (and different denominations for that matter) have DEEP differences despite our shared Christianity.
As far as focusing on the babies, I can work to save babies with someone who thinks I need to be afraid b/c of my beliefs just like I can work with someone who thinks I believe in a fictional sky wizard. I can work with people I disagree with on other issues. That doesn’t phase me at all. So unless we all need to suffer under a delusion that we share the same mind across the board in order to work together, I don’t see how civil discussion hurts the babies.
“… or who consults the dead.”
Consult: to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from
Is asking someone to pray for you consulting them? When I ask my sister to pray for me, I am not seeking advice, information, nor guidance.
You all seem to be avoiding the point that you’re asking dead individuals to pray for you, assuming that they, like God, can hear your prayers.
I’m saying that anyone who claims the Gospel of Jesus Christ as stated in Scripture is “not enough to save” should be seriously looking at the implications of such a statement. You’ve given reasons for why you don’t believe the Gospel is enough to save. I get that.
I don’t have a problem attending any Protestant church, regardless of denomination, which holds to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the transformative power of God for salvation for those who believe. I married a Lutheran, attended a Nazarene university, accepted Christ in a Baptist church, attended a Pentecostal church most of my life, and am now attending an ICC (independent Christian) church. The Catholic church is not one that I would attend.
It becomes increasingly difficult over time, however, to simply ignore the fact that other pro-lifers think you’re going to hell because you don’t agree with them on what their church states about non-abortifacient contraception (among other things).
Has a Catholic actually told you you’re going to hell because you use contraception? I certainly hope not, because that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. For a sin to be mortal it requires three things: grave matter, full knowledge, full consent. A sin that is mortal for one person may not be for another. We should never speculate on the eternal destiny of others.
Besides, sin doesn’t send you to hell, mortal or otherwise. Not believing in Christ does. And do you believe, really believe in your heart of hearts that Christ gives a rat’s a$$ about the finer points of doctrine?? He just wants you to know him and let him love you. All else pales in comparison.
Lrning – good to know.
They’ve told me I’m in serious sin because of contraception.
Where do you get this information on “mortal sin” and its criteria?
As for asking the “dead” saints to pray for us… Jesus told us they are alive. If they hear us it is because God allows it.
He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled. Mk 12:27
‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living. Mt 22:32
and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive. Lk 20:38
I don’t talk to my dead grandparents, either. And nowhere does the Bible say that God allows us to talk to the dead. To HIM all are alive.
Good to know I am going to hell, always a joy to hear.
The information about mortal sin is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I can’t find it’s exact location right now.
To say someone is in serious sin is different than saying they are going to hell. We can’t know someone is going to hell, but we can know if a sin is serious (grave) or not.
Please forgive me if my response seem short and curt. I’m short on time and really should get off the computer, but I wanted to make sure I answered you. I so admire posters like Paladin, with such gracious, complete, and well-written comments.
Lrning,
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm
Paragraphs 1854-1964 in the CCC. Gotta go!
Good to know I am going to hell, always a joy to hear.
All right – find me one Catholic on this thread who said it. I’m opening the challenge now that I’ve seen this accusation repeatedly. All I’ve seen discussed is morals and which actions are sinful. Nowhere was the state of anyone’s eternal soul questioned except (funnily enough) by Kel who thinks those who believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses more than sacred scripture should be afraid (presumably of our judgment day).
To discuss the morality of actions is NOT a discussion of the salvation of those committing those actions.
Besides, sin doesn’t send you to hell, mortal or otherwise. Not believing in Christ does.And do you believe, really believe in your heart of hearts that Christ gives a rat’s a$$ about the finer points of doctrine?? He just wants you to know him and let him love you. All else pales in comparison.
Courtnay: Sin separates us from knowing God. It turns our hearts slowly to stone, making it impossible for God to penetrate, not because He can’t but because we set our will against His. And every sin, every offense against the good does this. We may still pray and do many things right, and yes only God will make the final judgment, but we seal our fate in this lifetime. Sin matters in the cumulative.
I absolutely believe Christ cares about the finer points of his teachings and of morality. He said that the way is narrow. Salvation is through Christ, but there is a lot more involved in belief than just an intellectual acceptance of an idea. You must LOVE him. And you can not claim to love God and yet sin against his moral order freely and without remorse.
People can disagree about what is a sin, but you cannot disagree that unrepented sin matters.
Not picking on Catholics, CT. I was responding to what Courtnay said. I am not a Christian, so her comment applied to me.
Nowhere was the state of anyone’s eternal soul questioned except (funnily enough) by Kel who thinks those who believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses more than sacred scripture should be afraid (presumably of our judgment day).
Well, funnily enough, I never said you should fear your judgment day. Do you not believe that people who you feel may be entering into sin should be fearful of doing so?
Sin separates us from knowing God. It turns our hearts slowly to stone, making it impossible for God to penetrate, not because He can’t but because we set our will against His. And every sin, every offense against the good does this. We may still pray and do many things right, and yes only God will make the final judgment, but we seal our fate in this lifetime. Sin matters in the cumulative.
I absolutely believe Christ cares about the finer points of his teachings and of morality. He said that the way is narrow. Salvation is through Christ, but there is a lot more involved in belief than just an intellectual acceptance of an idea. You must LOVE him. And you can not claim to love God and yet sin against his moral order freely and without remorse.
People can disagree about what is a sin, but you cannot disagree that unrepented sin matters.
Don’t freak out or anything, but I totally agree with your comments here. :D
My bad. I misunderstood the definition of the word dogma. In fact, the belief in a Trinitarian God that I referenced as unchangeable throughout time is itself dogma.
Do you not believe that people who you feel may be entering into sin should be fearful of doing so?
Yes. Not because of judgment but because of the consequences of that sin. Think of it like a child who does not know that it’s wrong to touch the clothes iron and never was told by Mom not to do so. She will still get burned- even though she didn’t know better. Surely Mom won’t punish her for that, but is depply hurt that her child is in pain. Someone who is really ignorant that they are doing anything wrong is not held responsible for their choice, but will still be hurt by doing wrong. God does not want His children hurt- which is why He condemns what hurts us.
It is such with contraception. Good faith couples who practice contraception aren’t going to Hell, but they are deeply hurting themselves. They hurt from misplaced priorities, they steal purity, communication and intimacy from their marriage and potentially break up their family with divorce, they lose out of the priceless blessing of the children they would have had, they limit their legacy by limiting the number of grandchildren and so forth, deny their children more siblings, aunts and uncles for their granchildren and cousins as well. So a short term desire for fewer children for whatever temporary gain costs blessings for eternity. That’s a bad trade.
So I’m not worried about people’s souls- I am deeply hurting for their short-sidedness and what that short-sidedness will cost them and their family in the long run. And like the little girl and the clothes iron, if I can warn people about what will hurt them, I’m going to.
I am not a Christian, so her comment applied to me.
Okay, Jack- fill me in on this. When/why/how? And how devastated is your wife?
I don’t talk to my dead grandparents, either. And nowhere does the Bible say that God allows us to talk to the dead. To HIM all are alive.
Jesus said to them in reply, “You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven. 31And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you* by God, 32h ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Matt 22:29-32
Kel, This is exaclty why praying in communion with the saints is possible. Cause our God is the God of the living. And Mary, the Mother of Jesus and faithful handmaid of the Lord is living.
I am not sure what you mean, Jacqueline?
short-sidedness
Jacqueline, this is a minor point I admit but I always though the term was “short-sightedness”
This is kind of making sense to me now. It is not “required” to believe in a Trinitarian God in order to obtain salvation and nowhere is scripture is the Trinity specifically mentioned but nevertheless the Trinity is a truth forever that will not and cannot be changed through the end of all ages. Thus dogma.
Truthseeker-
You’re right- Sometimes I write in Texan the way it sounds in my head. I have lost count of the times I’ve written “thank” when I mean “think.” -My bad. Everybody gets my point though.
Jack,
I’ve never seen you call yourself a non-Christian. I know you were off-put (and rightly so) by the behavior of your parents but you honor the faith of your church-going wife and were talking about joining her. I was asking how you got from there (admiring your wife’s Christianity, considering church) to here- “I’m not a Christian”- and I imagine your wife is devastated if this is a new revelation.
Kel, don’t look at the dogma of the Catholic as adding to the Gospel, of course they do not. Rather look at dogma as ” lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith”.
wow, this thread got busy. I am not sure who mentioned the heirarchy of truths above but it is something I intend to research further:
“The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 “In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”
Oh, I see Jacqueline. No, I have never called myself a Christian. I do have a lot of interest in and admiration for Christianity, but I really think it is disrespectful to claim a label that I haven’t committed myself to. If I am not ready or able to commit myself to Christ and all that jazz, if I am not completely sure he is the way, truth and life, then it would be a little ridiculous if I claimed to be a Christian. I do believe in God, just not sure about Christianity yet. If anything I have become closer to making that leap, since I have solidly decided that God does in fact exist. And my wife will pretty much be incredibly unhappy about it until I do become a Christian again. I did visit the church she goes to, it was alright.
As a Christian, Kel, I do not believe that the dead in Christ are, in fact, dead. They have fallen asleep. If the thief could join Jesus that day in paradise, I do not believe the dead are waiting somewhere–the righteous dead are already in Heaven with God. I do not see Scriptural evidence that communication with them is possible, but their God is not the God of the dead but the living. If, however, it were possible that God allows the dead in Christ to hear prayers directed to them, it would be no more sinful to ask one’s dead grandparents to pray than one’s living grandparents.
Kel –
I am not Catholic so this should all be taken lightly; but in the “faith alone” argument, the point I often see coming up is that Catholics believe “faith plus other stuff like tradition, works, etc” which is blasphemy because faith should be enough. And to my understanding it’s just, like Bobby said, a different view of what constitutes “faith.”
For example, let’s say the key to a happy marriage is for a man to love his wife. Now, there are lots of things that GO WITH loving your wife, that we would consider to be the direct manifestation of loving your wife. Talking to her, respecting her, not cheating on her, not hitting her, etc. Semantically one could argue that merely loving his wife should be enough, but pragmatically we all know that loving one’s wife MEANS behaving in a certain way. There are things you cannot help but do to demonstrate that love – the actions and the “feeling” (not that love is simply a feeling, I think it’s a choice and an action itself; but for lack of a better word) are intertwined and inseparable.
This is my best understanding of what often gets accused of being “requirements” in Catholicism that are “not just faith.” Really, they are just the physical expression of faith.
As for saints, to my knowledge, Catholics are not required to pray to saints. They are allowed to pray to ask saints to pray for them, but there is a difference between prayer and worship – and while prayer may be directed towards saints for a variety of reasons, worship is always for God. I thought that the main definition of saints in Catholicism is that they are known to be in heaven (which is why it’s such a process to get canonized – it’s not a simple thing to know), and that is the reason it’s okay to pray to them to ask them to pray on your behalf – because they are with God in a sense that the rest of us are not.
Jack,
Okay, I get it now! It’s about honesty. And committment. That’s exactly as I was- I saw Christianity (rightly) as a commitment I wasn’t sure I wanted to make and even though I acted more Christian with my lifestyle than those “Christians” who claimed the label but lived as they pleased (and were so quick to tell me I was going to hell). I decided that it would be intellectually dishonest to call myself a Christian although I saw my journey as taking me in that exclusive direction. It took a year for me to finally take that commitment and honestly wear that label. I am glad God preserved me in the meantime, because as disgusted as I was that the fornicating drunk theif was telling me (virgin, sober and never stole) that I was going to Hell, that girl was technically correct: I was going to Hell if I died before repenting and accepting Jesus. The good thing is that I knew that I hadn’t repented and accepted Jesus- she clearly hadn’t but thought she had- so she didn’t know how to change. Her soul was in jeopardy, too, as much as mine was.
Jack,
Still praying for ya, man!
Kel,
Thank you for articulating so well the beliefs that you and I share.
I might say this- that if you love someone and claim to have a relationship with them, then you want to know everything about them and know it correctly. What kind of friend would I be to my wife if I didn’t know the names of her sisters, or if I mistakenly thought she had a brother? Similarly, if I claim to love Jesus and to have a relationship with him, I want to know everything about him and know it ACCURATELY. The more I know about him, the closer I grow to him, and (I would argue) all the Catholic dogmas (or one could say all the truths revealed in the bible) say something about him. So to make a dichotomy between theological/biblical truths vs. loving Jesus I think is quite false.
Paladin, thanks for your excellent remarks; always cogent and logical.
I didn’t think that my attempts to show, from scripture, that the Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth would meet with such negative feedback.
I think that people who are honestly searching for the truth might be interested to look into Pope John Paul II’s teachings on the theology of the body. He talks about the “language of the body” (I like to refer to it simply as body language.)—–“that bodily actions have a meaning as much as words do, and that unless we intend those meanings with our actions, we should not perform them any more than we should speak words that we don’t mean.” Both are disingenuous.
Clearly, the natural law tells us that sex was created primarily for procreation and for bonding.
It is immoral to contravene natural law. The Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes all mesh with and do not contradict the natural law. ”As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.” The natural law is God’s creation.
To be truly happy we must look to Jesus as our model. We want to be like Him. What is He like, how does He love, how did He live? He gave Himself up totally, holding nothing back. That is our goal, to love the way Jesus loves. Is it not? If we hold back from our spouse the gift of our fertility, the God-given gift of fertility, then we are not giving of ourselves totally when we engage in sexual intercourse.
“The sexual union of husband and wife has well-recognized meaning; it means: I love you”, you are so beautiful in my eyes, I want you to be happy, I want to be with you always, I want to give you all of myself, I am willing that our love for each other may be blessed by God with a child.
“Some who engage in sexual intercourse do not mean these things with their actions”; they wish simply to use each other for sexual pleasure, stripping sex of its God-given procreative power. “They have lied with their bodies in the same way as someone lies who says “I love you” to another simply for the purpose of obtaining some favor from him or her.”
“While people today sometimes long to experience the bonding power of the sexual act, they frequently have little understanding of the goodness of its procreative meaning. Indeed, our culture often treats babies as burdens and not as gifts.”
Fertility is seen as a curse, as a terrible nuisance that needs to be done away with.
“The truth is that if an act of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy, this means something’s gone “right” with the act–not that there’s been a terrible “accident”.
“Today, perhaps precisely because of the widespread availability of contraception, we’ve lost sight of the fundamental truth that those not ready for babies are not ready for sexual intercourse. Few seem to realize that sexual intercourse, making love, and making babies are inherently connected, and for good reason. Using contraception sets up the expectation that people can “responsibly” have sexual intercourse outside of marriage” or inside of marriage, “but pregnancies still happen: hence the large numbers of babies killed through abortions.” No matter how much people deny it there is a direct correlation between contraception and abortion. The facts are the facts. (Above quotes from Janet E. Smith Ph.D. and the dictionary.)
“There is an unbreakable connection between the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning of the conjugal act, and both are inherent in the conjugal act. THIS CONNECTION WAS ESTABLISHED by GOD and cannot be broken by man through his own volition.” (Humanae Vitae 12)
(Warning: LONG post! Occupational hazard, with these deep topics…)
Kel wrote, in reply to my post:
<i>[Paladin]
Yes… since God’s Written Word is not the totality of what He’s given to us, and He says so, even in the Bible, quite plainly. (Quotes available on request.)
[Kel]
I’m requesting quotes! :D</i>
:) Fair enough.
Quick aside: when we speak of the “Word of God”, many Protestants seem to be implying that this is the “Bible alone” (sola Scriptura)–and that’s precisely where Catholics (along with the Orthodox Churches, and some others) part ways with Protestants: Scripture is the WRITTEN Word of God… but the full and complete Word of God is Jesus, Himself (cf. John 1:1, etc.), and He communicated Himself to us in many ways beyond the Bible. In fact (as Theresa pointed out), the Bible was somewhat “late to the party”; Jesus established a Church, not a book; it was the Church of Christ Who (in turn) gave us a Book (the Bible) containing a good deal (though by no means “all”) of God’s self-revelation to us. I mention this, because “Sacred Tradition” is also the Word of God… but the parts of the Word of God that didn’t get written down specifically in the book we call the Bible, but were handed down orally (or through the very life of the Church). Point to ponder, when tempted to reject any and all “traditions” because of one’s interpretation of Mark 7 and Matthew 15…!
Quotes:
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2)
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
[Paladin]
You and I would both say the same to anyone who asked, “are you saying that reliance upon the Old Testament alone isn’t enough?
[Kel]
That’s because the Gospel message found in the New Testament through Christ is obviously the only way to the Father, as Christ Himself said.
:) Flag on the play, 10 yard penalty, milady! (Sorry… a bit of random levity!) Seriously, though: that boils down to saying, “The New Testament is necessary, because it says so in the New Testament!” For those (such as Orthodox Jews, etc.) who do not yet accept the NT, this simply won’t do. In fact, “sola Scriptura” has a much more severe problem: the Bible *never* says that “one must use the Bible alone” as the rule of Faith, nor does it say that it contains all revelation necessary for salvation, nor can it possibly interpret itself, nor did it choose its own contents! I’ll unpack those ideas in turn, below.
Most of the doctrines I find that are questionable in the CC came about a few hundred years (at LEAST) after Christ and the establishment of His church. That’s “church” with a little “c” because I’m not referring to the Roman Catholic Church here, but the universal church, the body of Christ.
I’m starting to suspect that many of what you take to be “doctrines” are actually “disciplines” (i.e. policies by which the Church maintains Her life in a changing world), which are not the same thing, nor are they unchangeable. The practice of abstaining from flesh meat on Fridays, for example, is such a practice (i.e. a discipline, but not a doctrine). A doctrine is a teaching about what is TRUE (with regard to salvation); a discipline is an instruction about what to DO in order to lead a holy life, and such.
[Paladin]
but you’ll need to help me understand how it could be taken as an insult, either to Protestants or to the Word of God.
[Kel]
Because I do not believe in adding to the Word of God.
Nor do I. But do see my comments about the contents of the “Word of God” (i.e. Jesus, Himself, and His self-revelation in writing, by word-of-mouth, by the living Tradition of the Church, etc.) vs the “WRITTEN Word of God”, which is somewhat different.
To me, that’s like saying you don’t believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ is enough to save.
Well… it depends on how you mean that. Do you believe, for example, that the Gospel, without faith on the part of the recipient or efforts to grow in holiness, is enough to save–that a mere intellectual memorization of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would be sufficient for salvation? I’d hardly think so. But more to the point: the contents of that “Gospel” are precisely what we seek to find, here; and I’d argue that it’s not simply the 4 Gospels, so-called. I trust that you do not believe in SUBTRACTING FROM the Word of God either… right?
And from what I’ve seen and learned of the CC, it appears that way.
Can you give some specifics?
[Paladin]
To that, I reply (treading as delicately as I can): such a claim needs proof, and proof beyond anyone’s “feelings”
[Kel]
How about the Greek and Hebrew translations and what was commonly, culturally known at the time – not speculation by Origen or Augustine or others who came hundreds of years later and added to things in Scripture.
Again, I’d have to know specific objections, rather than vague and sweeping claims like that… especially since Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other leaders/founders of Protestantism can be charged under that same indictment, and especially since they came much later than did St. Augustine, Origen, etc. (Case in point: “sola Scriptura” was an invention of these men, and it was unknown before that era; why reject commentary from St Augustine in 400 A.D., while embracing commentary of Luther from 1520 A.D., especially if “time-distance from Christ” is such an issue?)
[Paladin]
One can, for example, attain salvation without having a particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary
[Kel]
The fact that you have to point this out is what disturbs me. Salvation is found in none other than Jesus Christ. Of COURSE we “can attain salvation” without devotion to someone other than Christ!
But you go farther, and suggest that such devotion is inimical to the Faith… and that’s where I object.
(Although I don’t think I’d say “attain salvation” as it implies “righteous” effort on our part toward salvation as opposed to righteous works as a result of our salvation through Christ.)
Well… I “work out my salvation with fear and trembling”, as did St. Paul (cf. Philippians 2:12); I expect to be judged by my works (cf. Revelation 20:12, repeated in 20:13); and I hope to be saved by persevering to the end (cf. Matthew 10:22 and 24:13, Mark 13:13). That’s what faithful and well-informed Catholics mean by that phrase.
Historically, when do you believe this devotion to Mary began within the church?
From the very beginnings… during the lifetimes of the Apostles.
And why is it that I so often hear her referred to as “co-redemptrix” and “co-mediatrix?” When did those two particular terms come to be used?
“Co-redemptrix” means “one [female] who cooperates in the redemption wrought by Christ”. You do that, as well, whenever you pray for someone else (and call down God’s grace on them which would not otherwise have come down); Mary, as the sinless Mother of God Who is now in Heaven, does that more perfectly than we… but she, herself, would tell you (as would the Pope, or any other faithful, well-informed Catholic) that any of her efforts in that regard are completely dependent on the merits earned by the death of Our Saviour on the cross. “Co-mediatrix” (and sometimes simply “mediatrix”) means “one [female] who mediates the graces of God, given by Christ, to those who ask”. Again: you and I do the very same thing, only more poorly (because of our sinfulness and frailty, this side of the veil).
And I’m familiar with Dr. Hahn, back from my days of working at my old employer’s. They pretty much worshiped the ground he walked on.
(*sigh*) Wonderful. Some ill-informed Catholics, who tainted your experience of Catholicism in general, have now also tainted your experience of Dr. Hahn, and perhaps even “emotionally inoculated ” you against him and his excellent writings. I don’t suppose you read any of his works, before they poisoned the waters of your tastes against him? (Honestly: such cultural-Catholic-bulls-in-china-shops are almost enough to make me beat my head against the nearest wall!)
Look, we can take a whole lot of stuff out of the Bible and “assume” and “stretch” it and twist it to mean what we want it to mean, but that doesn’t make it true, nor is that being historically accurate.
That’s absolutely true. The task, then, is to distinguish truth from error, true interpretation from distortion, and fact from fantasy… and that must be done with logic, not with personal preferences, personal tastes, or the like.
It’s adding in doctrines that were certainly NOT put forth by the early church – not until hundreds of years after Christ.
Such as…? (I think of the Protestant ideas of “sola Scriptura”, “sola fide”, “once saved, always saved”, predestination of the damned, etc., none of which are in Scripture at all, and some of which are flatly contradicted by Scripture!) And to that point: do you think (for example) that the Catholic condemnation of human cloning is such a “false doctrine”? It certainly wasn’t even an issue in the early Church, and it’s nowhere to be found in Scripture…
[Paladin]
No one forced God to lead us to ask for prayers of each other, and to beg intercession from the Saints. God freely CHOSE to set up the world that way. We ask the Saints’ prayers because GOD WANTS US TO DO SO. Consider the logic of the situation: if God had wished only for a “me-and-Jesus” situation for all believers, then why not only have one “greatest commandment” (Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God, [etc.]), and not the second (“Love thy neighbour as thyself”)? We are saved not as individuals, but as One Body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:4-6, etc.; we are saved through our incorporation in the One Bride of Christ, Who is His Body.
[Kel]
Again… you’re kidding me, right??
Absolutely not.
The saints are dead, if you’ll pardon me for saying so.
I will certainly pardon you for saying so… but I will also firmly (though gently) say that you are utterly mistaken, and that the words of Our Lord prove that.
I ask living people to pray for me here on this earth, but I do not communicate with the dead or with those who have passed on. Deut. 18:11
Nor do I communicate with the dead. Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:27, Hebrews 12:1, etc. But I do think you communicate with at least one Person Who “passed on”–that is, if you pray to Jesus! Surely you believe He died, yes?
And as for the line I so often hear about how the saints are “alive in Christ,” this is correct,
Er… then why bring up the issue at all?
however, Jesus Christ is the “one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
All right… and that’s utterly true, in the absolute sense (that no one can pay our infinite debt but Jesus, Who is the Infinite God). But if you want to take that literally, to the n-th degree, then you’ll need to stop believing that your prayers for anyone else are of any use, whatsoever… since you are “mediating” in every such case, as am I. Why not say, “I won’t pray for you, since there is only one mediator; pray directly to Christ, and leave me alone”?
Regarding Catholics adding to the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
The Word of God is not solely a something, Sacred Scripture, it is a someone, Jesus Christ.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us… John 1:14
The Good News of Jesus Christ is not solely recorded in Sacred Scripture.
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. John 21:25
Oral teachings are also important.
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Ts, praying in communion with someone is, in my mind, very different than praying to them.
Addressing my prayers to someone that has died in Christ is still, and will always be, an extra-biblical teaching which I cannot accept as a legitimate Biblical practice.
I see Paladin answered so much more thoroughly than I.
Paladin, I love your posts!
Alexandra, the issues I have with Catholicism are the extra-biblical teachings that so often appear to contradict directives already laid out in Scripture (and I’m referring to the Bible here).
Working out ones faith is of course extremely important. If you don’t live it, then you don’t likely truly believe it, and so forth. Works should follow faith. I think on that, we would agree.
I believe the current definition of “saints” as used in the CC is, again, not scriptural and applies a meaning to the term not given in the Bible.
YCW – You just stated you do not see Scriptural evidence that communication with the dead in Christ is possible, yes?
I agree with this. I do not see Scriptural evidence of it either, which is why it is an extra-biblical teaching with which I do not agree.
Hi Theresa. If you didn’t expect an objection to your attempt to prove that the CC is the pillar and bulwark of Truth, then perhaps you weren’t aware that there are Protestants on these message boards as well, and Jill herself is a Protestant.
Paladin, I’ll address your post when I’m not on this darn cell phone! I should be home soon and in front of a regular keyboard that actually let’s me quote and respond! :)
A few quick (?) points, just so that people know where I stand on all this:
1) No one–least of all, I–am saying that anyone needs to join the Catholic Church. No one is saying that anyone needs to change denominations in order to believe that artificial contraception is morally evil. I hope that’s clear, at least. If anyone comes to the point where they freely choose to enter, I’ll be the first to welcome them with open arms; but that sort of thing is between them and Almighty God… not with me. I hope that will help some people relax, a bit, from any mistaken idea that I seek to put a “Catholic gun” to their heads.
2) I address points of Catholic doctrine here, because some on this board have stated that the Church is “wrong” on one or more matters. I do not do this in order to “pound the bushes for converts”; this is an effort of defense, not offense, on my part.
3) For the record: I (like any faithful, well-informed Catholic) am utterly forbidden–by the doctrine and discipline of the Church to Whom I belong–to make judgments about the state of anyone’s eternal soul. No one, save for God alone, can possibly do that; the very idea of a human doing so is utterly absurd, since no human (even for himself) could sift through the vast number of dynamics present in the human soul which could influence culpability (i.e. “blameworthiness”) for sin. To those on the board, please let this settle the matter: if you hear of any Catholic presuming to say that “so-and-so is going to Hell”, or “so-and-so must be in Hell”, then please know that they speak DESPITE their Catholicism, not because of it. I’m afraid there’s very little we can do about that, in fact; there are no prisons for committing such stupidity, it’d be immoral to shoot them, and other options are equally problematic; I hope you understand; but please, let us have enough of this nonsense about “the Catholic Church condemning people”.
4) Alexandra, you wrote the following: “I am not Catholic so this should all be taken lightly; but in the “faith alone” argument, the point I often see coming up is that Catholics believe “faith plus other stuff like tradition, works, etc” which is blasphemy because faith should be enough.”
I’m afraid that idea (of yours) flatly contradicts Scripture itself. There is only one time when the phrase “faith alone” occurs in the Bible… in James 2:24:
The idea of “faith alone” was an error–a “tradition of men”–invented by Luther and his allies in the cause; and it’s a sheer absurdity. We are indeed saved by faith… but not faith alone. We do indeed need the Bible… but not the Bible alone. Do you see? Catholics reject neither faith nor Scripture; they simply reject Luther’s error that these can be used, or that they were ever designed to work, ALONE. Remove the word “alone”, and things get rather better, quite quickly.
Kel,
:) No problem. Honestly, I admire anyone who has the patience to read, much less to answer, any of my long posts; I sometimes wonder if *I* could! (In person, in fact, I’m quite a bit more “pithy”, and actually a bit of a goof-ball, when “on the teaching stage”; it’s only in writing, with a good text editor and internet research at my fingertips, that I have the luxury to be exacting, pedantic, thorough, and utterly tiresome!)
I don’t think your posts are tiresome, Paladin. I find them fascinating, because I really know nothing about Catholicism and you are well-versed in it. :)
Yeah, Jacqueline, that is pretty much where I am at. I am not as sure as you were that my road would eventually lead to Christianity, but I am still trying to educate myself.
The problem I have with Christians telling non-Christians they are going to hell is that, besides being freaking annoying, it’s seems a little counterproductive. I am sure 99% + of Americans who aren’t Christians are fully aware that Christian doctrine damns us. It just doesn’t convince many, seeing as a whole ton of religions say the same thing. It doesn’t teach anyone anything, it just irritates people and makes them not want to talk to Christians about their faith. I sure don’t feel like talking to someone who seems to relish the thought of me burning for eternity.
And thank you Carla! :) Carla = awesome.
Carla = awesome.
:) This is true! Proofs available on request.
Thank you!
Jack,
I have been told that I would go to hell for my abortion. Hardly won my heart or encouraged any type of discussion.
I agree with this. I do not see Scriptural evidence of it either, which is why it is an extra-biblical teaching with which I do not agree.
Kel, you keep saying Catholicism ”adds to the Bible”- How can you add to something that existed BEFORE it was created? The Catholic Church predates the Bible- the traditions and teachings aren’t add-ons, they’re baked right in! All the councils of Bishops were convened not to “add teaching” but to address deadly heresies and how to clarify the unchanging truth that was always taught, yet some people failed to understand or purposefully perverted. Leaves come from trees- to say that people are adding to the leaf by acknowledging the tree is illogical and false. Tradition and teaching were happening before the Bible was written, compiled and canonized.
So Catholics do not add to the Bible. They have the traditions about which the Bible speaks and admonishes the believer to follow and that’s what you misperceive as “extra-biblical”- Remember that during the reformation, Luther took away from the Bible those books that didn’t suit him and wrote his own catechism. So again, what you consider to be added to the Bible could also simply be what was taken away from it and explained away by people who didn’t want to accept the teachings handed down by the apostles (apostles who wrote the Bible and explained how it was to be interpretted). If you had a whole Bible, you could find what you seek, but Luther took that out on purpose to fit with his new doctrine. He almost took out the Book of James because of James’ clear statement about how faith is dead without good works (James 2:14-26) because it didn’t jive with the version of Christianity that he wanted to create.
So what you keep saying is a horrible accusation not based in history nor truth. Nothing is added to the Bible. It existed and God tells us to heed it- and we’ve done so steadfast for 2000+ years.
By the way, I am a former evangelical who converted at age 26 to Catholicism on my own. There was way too much self-reliance I found to trust in myself to know what was and was not the real Bible and what it actually said. I trusted in my personal revelations on Scripture per the Holy Spirit, but who could be trusted for accurate teaching when all these revelations disagree? I didn’t choose to become Catholic- the Lord told me I was and to pursue it. I spouted some of the same concerns you have and He said, “I’ll handle that.” And He did- I agree with all the Church’s teachings now that I was educated on them and wasn’t coming to my own conclusions with incomplete information. I am glad you are giving us a chance to correct much of what you’ve heard and beleive, because it’s not true.
Would any among you suppose to proclaim a limit to the grace of God by proclaiming that God cannot save but through the gospel of Jesus Christ? The gospel of Jesus Christ is a blessing and a grace from God to each of us. Jesus Christ himself is the culmination of all that God has given to mankind. But I would not place limits upon the powers of God by prclaiming that the gospel itself is the only way God can save man.
Kel,
Just saw your post on “Sola Fide”, by faith alone we’re saved. You seem to have an either/or attitude regarding “faith alone”. I maintain that it is both/and. Let me explain. What I mean by both/and is that scripture passages have to be understood in the context of the whole Bible; to take a text out of context is a pretext.
The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by God’s Grace alone, through faith and works. As I read scripture it sure seems to me that the Church has it right and the “sola fide” folks have it wrong.
Yes, Faith is essential, but according to scripture so are works; keeping in mind that we are all helpless without GRACE. As a matter of fact, the only place in scripture that says “faith alone” is where James says that “We are NOT saved by faith alone.” James 2:20-21 says, “Do you want to be shown you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
James 2:24-26 states, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Hahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”
You can quote other passages that say that so and so was justified by faith; and that is exactly my point. It isn’t either/or it is both/and.
“Faith alone” is a “man-made tradition” of Martin Luther, that was never ever a teaching of Christ or the Apostles or the Apostolic Church for the first 1,500 years of Christianity and it still isn’t. In short, “sola fide” is another heresy of the protestant revolt.
Show me one passage in scripture that says we are saved by faith alone.
Please remember that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by Grace alone, through faith and works.
Thanks for your thoughtful consideration.
Yeah, Jacqueline, that is pretty much where I am at. I am not as sure as you were that my road would eventually lead to Christianity, but I am still trying to educate myself.
Yeah- I could say that because I am am on the other side. At the time, I certianly wasn’t sure that I would end up Christian- I was merely leaning that direction. You appear to be.
The problem I have with Christians telling non-Christians they are going to hell
is that, besides being freaking annoying, it’s seems a little counterproductive. I sure don’t feel like talking to someone who seems to relish the thought of me burning for eternity.
If done from that orientation- yeah! But when I was told, it was the very definition of evangelism: “One beggar telling another beggar where to find food.” It wasn’t a condemnation saying I was a bad awful person, it was the same as telling a starving person that they would die without food so they would take the food being offered. The human condition is to die without food. The human condition is also to be damned without Jesus. It has nothing to do with any individual’s actions- that they are bad, worse that someone else- it’s that they are human and need salvation. One forgiven person is no better than another forgiven person- they are equal. However a forgiven person is better-off, which is the only reason to share with others what you want them to have as well. People need Jesus like they need food, water and air. Giving them what they need to save them is an act of mercy. Anyone who wants you to burn in Hell for all eternity wouldn’t tell you how to avoid Hell- and if by chance some are that malicious, they have their own souls to worry about.
God’s grace is infinite and infinite grace is available by accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour. The very continuation of that faith and acceptance of Jesus relies not only upon having received the gospel itself but also on God’s continunual presence within us through the Holy Spirit.
this is an effort of defense, not offense, on my part
This, on my part as well.
OK, I’m home now. :)
Paladin, you know I love ya, man. I’m the Paladin fan club president! :D You’re never tiresome.
Well, at the risk of being the Lone Ranger Protestant willing to post here at this point, here I go…
Quick aside: when we speak of the “Word of God”, many Protestants seem to be implying that this is the “Bible alone” (sola Scriptura)–and that’s precisely where Catholics (along with the Orthodox Churches, and some others) part ways with Protestants: Scripture is the WRITTEN Word of God… but the full and complete Word of God is Jesus, Himself (cf. John 1:1, etc.)
I agree with this.
and He communicated Himself to us in many ways beyond the Bible.
This depends on what exactly you mean by this. He sent the Holy Spirit, who would “guide us into all Truth.” Oh, and the reason why I object to anyone saying the CC is the pillar and bulwark of Truth is because I believe Jesus is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” and that “no one comes to the Father” except through Him. He is the Truth.
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
Sure, that’s reasonable, of course.
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2)
“Even as I have delivered them to you.” I assume you are stating you think none of these traditions Paul mentions were written in Scripture?
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Sure, but what kind of things are we talking about here? Mary veneration? Praying to the saints?
Wikipedia states: “Christian devotion to Mary goes back to the 2nd century and predates the emergence of a specific Marian liturgical system in the 5th century, following the First Council of Ephesus in 431. The Council itself was held at a church in Ephesus which had been dedicated to Mary about a hundred years before.[38][39][40] In Egypt the veneration of Mary had started in the 3rd century and the term Theotokos was used by Origen, the Alexandrian Father of the Church.[41]” Do you agree with this? I also find the dates listed on certain Marian doctrines to be interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28mother_of_Jesus%29#Christian_doctrines The Virgin birth is the earliest of these councils, and yet we know from the Old Testament that indeed, it was prophesied that a Virgin would conceive the Messiah. And of course, I have no issue with this particular doctrine.
:) Flag on the play, 10 yard penalty, milady! (Sorry… a bit of random levity!) Seriously, though: that boils down to saying, “The New Testament is necessary, because it says so in the New Testament!”
Really, Paladin? The redemption through the Messiah was foretold in Genesis 3. As I stated before, the foreshadowing of Christ is all throughout the Old Testament.
nor does it say that it contains all revelation necessary for salvation
Whoa… hold the phone, there. What kind of revelation are we talking about here? That Jesus Christ is the Messiah, who died for our sins, was raised, and now sits at the right hand of the Father? Because the confession that Christ is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead is a confession of faith (Romans 10:9, 10)
nor can it possibly interpret itself
Scripture interpreting Scripture is a very reliable practice which is used by Bible translators and historians, so I’m not sure what you mean by this.
nor did it choose its own contents!
This is true (or should I say, “Duh!”) :D
I’m starting to suspect that many of what you take to be “doctrines” are actually “disciplines” (i.e. policies by which the Church maintains Her life in a changing world), which are not the same thing, nor are they unchangeable. The practice of abstaining from flesh meat on Fridays, for example, is such a practice (i.e. a discipline, but not a doctrine). A doctrine is a teaching about what is TRUE (with regard to salvation); a discipline is an instruction about what to DO in order to lead a holy life, and such.
No, I don’t think I’m confusing the two.
Well… it depends on how you mean that. Do you believe, for example, that the Gospel, without faith on the part of the recipient or efforts to grow in holiness, is enough to save
No, of course not.
But more to the point: the contents of that “Gospel” are precisely what we seek to find, here; and I’d argue that it’s not simply the 4 Gospels, so-called.
See, when I see things like “so-called” it makes me really edgy. This is what I mean by the “perceived insult” to the Word of God. The Gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, died for our sins, rose again from the dead, and ascended to the Father so that we might be saved. This is the news of those four “so-called” Gospels.
Again, I’d have to know specific objections, rather than vague and sweeping claims like that… especially since Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other leaders/founders of Protestantism can be charged under that same indictment, and especially since they came much later than did St. Augustine, Origen, etc. (Case in point: “sola Scriptura” was an invention of these men, and it was unknown before that era; why reject commentary from St Augustine in 400 A.D., while embracing commentary of Luther from 1520 A.D., especially if “time-distance from Christ” is such an issue?)
The difference, to me, is that instead of “stretching” things, it appears that Luther and Calvin (in some ways, though not all, because I don’t fully agree with either of them) were attempting to simplify or make plain the Truth, rather than add to it things that are not made plain in Scripture. P.S. – you do realize that Martin Luther comes well before an awful lot of those dates surrounding the cementing of certain beliefs about Mary, yes?
But you go farther, and suggest that such devotion is inimical to the Faith… and that’s where I object.
Yes, I do. I feel that the devotion is entirely and completely misplaced. I can drive around almost any town I’ve lived in and see a plethora of Mary statues (what’s with the statue thing, btw??) and none of Christ. It certainly gives off that impression. And maybe this is yet ANOTHER example of “well, that’s not true Catholic doctrine, just misinformed Catholics,” but if so, it’s pretty darn widespread.
Well… I “work out my salvation with fear and trembling”, as did St. Paul (cf. Philippians 2:12); I expect to be judged by my works (cf. Revelation 20:12, repeated in 20:13); and I hope to be saved by persevering to the end (cf. Matthew 10:22 and 24:13, Mark 13:13). That’s what faithful and well-informed Catholics mean by that phrase.
“Saved by Christ and kept in Christ by persevering to the end” is how I suppose I would say it.
From the very beginnings… during the lifetimes of the Apostles.
Okay. I need some sources on this.
And why is it that I so often hear her referred to as “co-redemptrix” and “co-mediatrix?” When did those two particular terms come to be used?
“Co-redemptrix” means “one [female] who cooperates in the redemption wrought by Christ”. You do that, as well, whenever you pray for someone else (and call down God’s grace on them which would not otherwise have come down); Mary, as the sinless Mother of God Who is now in Heaven, does that more perfectly than we… but she, herself, would tell you (as would the Pope, or any other faithful, well-informed Catholic) that any of her efforts in that regard are completely dependent on the merits earned by the death of Our Saviour on the cross. “Co-mediatrix” (and sometimes simply “mediatrix”) means “one [female] who mediates the graces of God, given by Christ, to those who ask”. Again: you and I do the very same thing, only more poorly (because of our sinfulness and frailty, this side of the veil).
“Sinless” does not compute with me unless the term is applied to Christ.
I’m sorry, but if we’re all “doing the very same thing” as Mary, then why the excessive veneration? Oh, I see now… you believe she was sinless. Hmm. Which I obviously do not believe (was that doctrine established in 1854??).
And I’m familiar with Dr. Hahn, back from my days of working at my old employer’s. They pretty much worshiped the ground he walked on.
(*sigh*) Wonderful. Some ill-informed Catholics, who tainted your experience of Catholicism in general, have now also tainted your experience of Dr. Hahn, and perhaps even “emotionally inoculated ” you against him and his excellent writings. I don’t suppose you read any of his works, before they poisoned the waters of your tastes against him? (Honestly: such cultural-Catholic-bulls-in-china-shops are almost enough to make me beat my head against the nearest wall!)
Well, if that didn’t do it, then what you quoted to me earlier just made me exceedingly glad that I refused to read his books.
That’s absolutely true. The task, then, is to distinguish truth from error, true interpretation from distortion, and fact from fantasy… and that must be done with logic, not with personal preferences, personal tastes, or the like.
That must be done by making sure such doctrine is not contrary to God’s Word – unless you stretch it to mean extra things, that is. ;) Sorry, couldn’t resist…
It’s adding in doctrines that were certainly NOT put forth by the early church – not until hundreds of years after Christ.
Such as…? (I think of the Protestant ideas of “sola Scriptura”, “sola fide”, “once saved, always saved”, predestination of the damned, etc., none of which are in Scripture at all, and some of which are flatly contradicted by Scripture!) And to that point: do you think (for example) that the Catholic condemnation of human cloning is such a “false doctrine”? It certainly wasn’t even an issue in the early Church, and it’s nowhere to be found in Scripture…
As for the “once saved, always saved,” – I don’t agree with that. It’s kind of a misnomer, in a way, though… no one can technically “lose” their salvation, but they can certainly decide to reject Christ.
Predestination – ummm… nope.
No, I wouldn’t consider the condemnation of human cloning to be a doctrine, period.
The saints are dead, if you’ll pardon me for saying so.
I will certainly pardon you for saying so… but I will also firmly (though gently) say that you are utterly mistaken, and that the words of Our Lord prove that.
I ask living people to pray for me here on this earth, but I do not communicate with the dead or with those who have passed on. Deut. 18:11
Nor do I communicate with the dead. Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:27, Hebrews 12:1, etc. But I do think you communicate with at least one Person Who “passed on”–that is, if you pray to Jesus! Surely you believe He died, yes?
Oh, you made me laugh with this one! Jesus rose from the dead. :)
And as for the line I so often hear about how the saints are “alive in Christ,” this is correct,
Er… then why bring up the issue at all?
Because talking to the dead is an occult practice which God said we are not to participate in.
however, Jesus Christ is the “one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
All right… and that’s utterly true, in the absolute sense (that no one can pay our infinite debt but Jesus, Who is the Infinite God). But if you want to take that literally, to the n-th degree, then you’ll need to stop believing that your prayers for anyone else are of any use, whatsoever… since you are “mediating” in every such case, as am I. Why not say, “I won’t pray for you, since there is only one mediator; pray directly to Christ, and leave me alone”?
I think you miss the point here – people who pray for me ARE praying to Christ. Why on earth would I ask a “saint” who has passed on to “pray for me” when Christ Himself is my mediator and intercessor? I don’t get it.
Also, regarding saints – I have a question: Do you beseech Moses and Elijah to pray for you as well? I’ve not heard mention of doing anything like that, so I’m curious.
God’s grace is infinite and infinite grace is available by accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour. The very continuation of that faith and acceptance of Jesus relies not only upon having received the gospel itself but also on God’s continunual presence within us through the Holy Spirit.
I agree with this.
Paladin, I did not mean to imply that I thought that faith alone is needed. That is what I hear people saying – how could God require works of people, etc – and my understanding is that works are part of faith. I guess. I am not any denomination of Christianity though.
Kel,
Just saw your post on “Sola Fide”, by faith alone we’re saved.
Me? Did I do a post on that, or was it Alexandra?
I agreed with Paladin that we will be judged according to our works, but we are justified by faith alone, through God’s grace extended to us through Jesus Christ.
Kel, you keep saying Catholicism “adds to the Bible”- How can you add to something that existed BEFORE it was created? The Catholic Church predates the Bible
Unless you’re talking about Peter, I don’t know what you’re getting at here. The doctrines I take issue with were established well after the Gospels were written. Whether or not they were assembled into one Book yet does not matter.
And FYI, you’re kinda preaching to the choir about Luther. I’m really not a big fan.
I trusted in my personal revelations on Scripture per the Holy Spirit, but who could be trusted for accurate teaching when all these revelations disagree?
That’s unfortunate, because Scripture is quite clear on most things, if you truly do the research into the text. Being led by the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean interpreting Scripture how you want to.
Yes, I do. I feel that the devotion is entirely and completely misplaced. I can drive around almost any town I’ve lived in and see a plethora of Mary statues (what’s with the statue thing, btw??) and none of Christ.
Jesus loves that I love his Mother enough to put a statue of her up. He is not jealous if I have more objects that remind me of her than remind me of Him (I’d have to count, I have quite a few of both and a few saint items as well!). Loving Mary does not decrease my love for her Son but only increases my love for Him.
The statues help remind people of someone they love (like the photo in a locket or in a wallet). Mary said yes to Jesus and she is constantly reminding and prodding us to say yes to Him as well.
Because talking to the dead is an occult practice which God said we are not to participate in.
Kel, Was it an occult practice when Jesus talked with Moses and Elijah at his transfiguration?
Actually, I was thinking of that event myself when I wrote that. :D No, because Jesus is God, and this event added to the proof of his Divinity.
Did the disciples talk to Moses and Elijah?
I think you miss the point here – people who pray for me ARE praying to Christ. Why on earth would I ask a “saint” who has passed on to “pray for me” when Christ Himself is my mediator and intercessor? I don’t get it.
Kel, holy people can intercede for one another. The apostles did many miracles in Jesus’ name.
“But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you,g and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1:8
Kel, The saints (present and passed) are such holy people and they are alive in Christ so why would I forsake graces being transferred from God to me through their intercession. The miracles they perform are gifts of grace and mercy through the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus left us these gifts/tools to use towards salvation and I disagree with your inference that is is somehow occult to call upon the saints and the miraculous gifts Jesus gives to them and gave to his apostles as being occult.
Jesus loves that I love his Mother enough to put a statue of her up. He is not jealous if I have more objects that remind me of her than remind me of Him (I’d have to count, I have quite a few of both and a few saint items as well!). Loving Mary does not decrease my love for her Son but only increases my love for Him.
Was God jealous of the idols and Asherah poles? It just looks idolatrous to me. If you say it isn’t, that’s your call. But to the average person (and I’m a Christian, so I’m not some irreligious individual), it smacks of idol worship. God is a jealous God and He does long for our whole hearts. We should not put anything above Christ – not even statues of His earthly mother.
I do not put statues of my children in my yard and garden, nor do I venerate them, but I suppose some people might.
The saints (present and passed) are such holy people and they are alive in Christ so why would I forsake graces being transferred from God to me through their intercession.
Are the saints only certain people, or everyone who has passed on and is now alive in Christ?
You can disagree with me, but I don’t recall Jesus teaching His disciples how to pray to anyone except God. But perhaps that’s just in one of those other books which “complete” Scripture that I haven’t read…
And again, TS, do you not believe that Christ Himself intercedes for you?
If no one ever prayed for me again, He is still praying for me.
Actually, I was thinking of that event myself when I wrote that. No, because Jesus is God, and this event added to the proof of his Divinity.
Is it proof of Mary’s divinity then because the angel Gabriel hailed her as being favored by the Lord and having been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit? Human contact with the angels and the divine is documented and such encounters are commonly documented in the Word of God.
Is it proof of Peters divinity that he was able to write about St. Michael crushing the devil by calling upon God to rebuke him? Is it proof of their divinity that the apostles were able to raise people from the dead? I say NO. But the Word of God is proof that they did these things using divine power that was transferred from them to others who were here on earth.
Is it proof of Mary’s divinity then because the angel Gabriel hailed her as being favored by the Lord and having been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit?
No, because angels are not the spirits of deceased persons. Mary was consecrated by the Holy Spirit for her specific purpose. To have found favor with God is no small thing. The same term is used in Ephesians 1:6 in which Paul refers to those in Christ as “favored” or accepted by God.
Human contact with the angels and the divine is documented and such encounters are commonly documented in the Word of God.
Absolutely. But again, angels are not the spirits of deceased persons.
Is it proof of Peters divinity that he was able to write about St. Michael crushing the devil by calling upon God to rebuke him? Is it proof of their divinity that the apostles were able to raise people from the dead? I say NO. But the Word of God is proof that they did these things using divine power that was transferred from them to others who were here on earth.
I’d agree with you; it isn’t. They did what they did through the power of the Holy Spirit.
You can disagree with me, but I don’t recall Jesus teaching His disciples how to pray to anyone except God. But perhaps that’s just in one of those other books which “complete” Scripture that I haven’t read…
We do not pray to anybody other than God. We do call upon Mary and St Anthony and St Michael etc… and ask them to pray to God for/with us . There is a huge difference. And it is in scripture that Jesus called upon his disciples to pray to God that they receive the gifts granted to them on Pentecost to battle against evil. And Jesus empowered his disciples to use those gifts (once received) for others who would seek after God’s mercy. Why would I not seek that kind of aid from the angels and the saints?
By joining my prayers in communion with Mary I am petitioning the Lord that he send me that same Holy Spirit that overshadowed her; to join with me in my battles just as Jesus promised God would send that Holy Spirit down upon us too.
If you know Christ, then you already HAVE that same Holy Spirit which overshadowed Mary. You do not need to join your prayers in communion with any special person. He does not ask us to join our prayers with deceased saints in order to get special gifts. You can petition the Lord without help from anyone else.
We do not pray to anybody other than God. We do call upon Mary and St Anthony and St Michael etc… and ask them to pray to God for/with us . There is a huge difference.
“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley, of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus; O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”
Pray for us Oh holy Mother of God. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
So, just as the healing touch of the apostles brought salvation upon many; so they bring that same salvation to us if we call upon them in the name of Jesus Christ to whom all power was given. Look at this passage from Luke :
“The seventy [-two] returned rejoicing, and said, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name.” 18Jesus said, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning* from the sky.p 19Behold, I have given you the power ‘to tread upon serpents’ and scorpions and upon the full force of the enemy and nothing will harm you.“ Luke 10:17
The key here is that Jesus left his apostles and his ministry here on earth healing in the name of Jesus Christ. I am exceedingly happy I can ask for their assistance by calling out to them in the name of Jesus Christ.
TS, what’s your point? I must be missing something.
And the healing touch of the apostles brought healing. Not salvation.
Kel,
Why did Jesus give the apostles power to perform miracles here on earth? Why didn’t he just make everybody come directly to him for help?
Answer:
So that Christians could help one another and/or call upon one another for help in the name of Jesus Christ.
Answer: to show forth God’s power and glory to lend credibility to the Gospel message.
wasn’t it Mary that told the waiters at the Wedding at Cana “do whatever He Tells you?”
The Saints are in Heaven with God and yes, they can hear our prayers. Catholics reach out to these special holy men and women to take our prayers to Christ. My paternal grandmother suffered a miscarriage between my dad’s younger sister and younger brother. When she was pregnant with my dad’s younger brother, the baby of the family, she asked Saint Gerard for his prayers because of a difficult pregnancy. My uncle was born healthy and his middle name is Gerard. I ask Saint Anthony for help all the time when I am missing items. Usually I find them after I suddenly remember to look in a specific place.
I wish more people would at least study what NFP is all about because its NOT your grandmother’s rhythm method by any means! There are many different methods, but they require communication between spouses and studying and recording the natural signs the body gives. So, yes it takes work.
No, because angels are not the spirits of deceased persons.
Kel, I’d be curious as to what you think angels are then. Jesus himself tell us that our persons after death in heaven would be like that of the angels.
“At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven” Mt 22:30
Answer: to show forth God’s power and glory to lend credibility to the Gospel message.
And if you believe the gospel message then you believe he showed forth his power and glory by having men cast out demons and cure one another in Jesus name. I think I understand your hesitancy here Kel. I agree it is only healthy for people to place their faith in Jesus alone and I would agree with you on that.
Lets take a look at the baptism of Jesus when Jesus insists that John baptise him so that all righteousness could be fulfilled. If Jesus could accept blessing and the grace of the Holy Spirit coming upon him through a human vessel then we should also open ourselves up to these graces per his example.
Wasn’t it Mary that told the waiters at the Wedding at Cana “do whatever He Tells you?”
Yes it was Liz from Nebraska. It was at the urging of his mother that Jesus performed his first miracle.
But to the average person (and I’m a Christian, so I’m not some irreligious individual), it smacks of idol worship.
Maybe the average person you know but not the average person I know. No one said you are irreligious.
God is a jealous God and He does long for our whole hearts. We should not put anything above Christ – not even statues of His earthly mother.
Really Kel. Do you think any Catholic who has a statue of Mary puts not only Mary, but a statue, above Christ? Is this really what you believe about Catholics? You are very wrong.
There is no person, animal or thing above Christ in my life. After reading how others have tried to explain the Catholic view on this, I have no other way to put it to you.
I know Christians who have tattoos of family names, photos of friends on their desks, cemetery statue memorials of angels, etc. They should not be putting these things above Christ.
Paladin ….Applause!! Two of the best posts I’ve read!
Jacqueline:
“Kel, you keep saying Catholicism ”adds to the Bible”- How can you add to something that existed BEFORE it was created? The Catholic Church predates the Bible- the traditions and teachings aren’t add-ons, they’re baked right in! All the councils of Bishops were convened not to “add teaching” but to address deadly heresies and how to clarify the unchanging truth that was always taught, yet some people failed to understand or purposefully perverted. Leaves come from trees- to say that people are adding to the leaf by acknowledging the tree is illogical and false. Tradition and teaching were happening before the Bible was written, compiled and canonized.”
Yes!
P.S. I still write “for all intensive purposes” now and again even though I KNOW that doesn’t make sense. I like “thank” instead of “think”, lol.
I wish I had something of my own to add. Instead I’ll just say, “Bravo!!”. Night all :-)
Turn, then, most gracious Advocate
The Virgin Mary is an Advocate (a most gracious one!) but she is not God.
And don’t let the bed-bugs bite
Kel, I’d be curious as to what you think angels are then.
Is this a serious question, or are you kidding with me? Do you think angels are the spirits of deceased persons??
“Like” angels. You do understand that something can be “like” something else in certain respects and not actually BE that something, yes?
Do you think any Catholic who has a statue of Mary puts not only Mary, but a statue, above Christ?
Not the statue. The statue is the symbol of their veneration of this woman who was a human, like us, whom the Lord used in an amazing, miraculous way. She is not the Mother of God. She was the earthly mother of Jesus Christ who was born into the world. “Mother of God” has implications I’m not sure you’re aware of. God has no mother. He is the self-existent One. The I AM.
I’m not saying anything is above Christ in your life. I’m just saying to outsiders, the level of Marian veneration seems to very much overshadow Christ.
Christ is my only Advocate. I John 2:1 – “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
And with that, I’m out. Knew I wouldn’t get anywhere but I had to at least speak up for what I believe the Bible says about Truth and what I believe is completely and wholly unbiblical.
Thanks for the discussion, all – and for the record, I believe the Catholics who frequent this site are some of the most sincere and wonderful that I’ve ever spoken with. I am proud to stand with you for life.
“Like” angels. You do understand that something can be “like” something else in certain respects and not actually BE that something, yes?
Kel, You didn’t answer my question. What do you think angels are and why you think people could not be some type of angels at resurrection?
Jesus tells us in the Word of God that we will be like angels at resurrection. I know you have no higher authority than that. If you have a better revelation of what we will be like at resurrection then lets hear it.
Kel said:
“Knew I wouldn’t get anywhere but I had to at least speak up for what I believe the Bible says about Truth and what I believe is completely and wholly unbiblical.”
Kel, all the arguments I used were backed directly from scripture.
1) The God of Mary is the God of Abraham is the God of the living. Mary is alive in Christ. Praying to her is NOT praying to a dead person.
2) According to the gospel Jesus gave his apostles and their disciples gift of the Holy Spirit. You agreed with that one right off the bat…YEAH
3) According to the Gospel and Acts the disciples of Jesus Christ used the power of the Holy Spirit to intercede (drive out demons, heal, raise people from the dead) for people in the name of Jesus Christ.
4) Scripture has examples of Jesus and Mary and Joseph all talking with angels who were messengers of God.
5) Per Jesus, at the resurrection we will be like angels.
And until Jesus comes again on Resurrection Day he gave us specific tools to use in order to get help from His Father in heaven. That does not mean you can’t also give the message directly to God but denying yourself the use of these tools that Jesus gave us is like saying you have a better plan than Jesus did for your salvation. Give glory to God by getting baptized. Give glory to God by being a vessel of the Holy Spirit here on earth. Give glory to God through Mary the Virgin Mother of Jesus and spouse of the Holy Spirit. Give glory to God through his angels and his saints. It is ok to pray in Jesus name and give your for God to an angel so that they can intercede/deliver it to God on your behalf.
It is ok to pray in Jesus name and give your petition/message for God to an angel so that they can intercede/deliver it to God on your behalf.
“She is not the Mother of God. She was the earthly mother of Jesus Christ who was born into the world. “Mother of God” has implications I’m not sure you’re aware of. God has no mother. He is the self-existent One. The I AM.”
Let’s define our terms carefully here. When we talk about a mother, we mean someone who gives a nature to someone else and that nature is the same nature as the mother. In the case of Jesus and Mary, Mary gave Jesus a nature, and it was a human nature. That is the metaphysical definition of what it means to be a mother. Notice that it does not imply that Mary is older than God or that she is responsible for his coming into existence. That was never what it implied nor was taht meant to imply.
In fact, it was defined PRECISELY to say something about Jesus (I believe at the Council of Ephesus, AD 431). The reason tehy gave Mary the tile Mother of GOD (and not simply Jesus) is as follows: if you only say Mary is the Mother of Jesus and NOT the Mother of God, we have a problem. Mary is Jesus’ mother. Who is Jesus? Jesus is God. The reply then is “but she only gave birth to Jesus in his HUMAN nature not his divine.” Now we have fallen into the Nestorian heresy which says that Jesus is two persons. Nestorianism was a big heresy that the early Church was combating, and the definition of Mary as mother of God solidified the Church’s position against Nestorianism, confirming the fact that Jesus is only ONE person, not two. If one holds that Mary is only the Mother of Jesus but not God, one has to either say that Mary is only the Mother of a “human nature”, which is absurd since mothers do not give birth to natures but people. Or one has to say that Mary gave birth to Jesus the HUMAN person but not Jesus teh divine person, and hence, Jesus is two people.
Everything we Catholics believe about Mary is a reflection of Jesus; it all says something about Jesus.
Oh I jsut saw that yoyu’re going, Kel, but I do think the Mother of God issue is VERY important. IN fact, there are a LOT, I think, of Protestants who give her that title. I think in general, many Protestants claim to hold to the 4 ecumenical councils. Ephesus was number three. So you may know many Protestants who do use that title for Mary. My point is that it’s one of these things that Protestants tend to go either way on. I’d be surprised to find a Protestant who believed in Purgatory or the bodily assumption of Mary, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find one who used the title Mother of God for Mary.
I don’t know, I guess my only point is that I really hope you’ll consider whether or not Mary should be called Mother of God, especially given the fact that it was formally defined all the way back in AD 431, which means it was believed by many Christians much earlier than that. God love you.
I’m just saying to outsiders, the level of Marian veneration seems to very much overshadow Christ.
No, this is not what you said. You said this: ”
We should not put anything above Christ – not even statues of His earthly mother.”
I’m just saying that to faithful Catholics, stating or inferring that we put Mary or anyone above Christ is wrong and untruthful. Passing this myth along to young people is spreading this untruth. What it seems like to you is not the truth.
Thanks so much for discussing this with me, Kel. I know it is hard at times but I am glad you are willing to stand up for your faith. I am so proud to stand with you and others here for life, too!
Jesus is GOD. Mary gave birth to the HUMAN person of Jesus…yes, but he has TWO NATURES…human & divine….and since she gave birth to the 2nd person of the Trinity, she is the MOTHER OF GOD (God the SON that is). She also faced a crisis pregnancy….she was betrothed/engaged to Joseph, but found to be pregnant before the wedding. Back then, that was a crime that would have gotten her STONED. But because Joseph was visited by the Angel, who explained the situation and stopped him from his intention to divorce her, he did not abandon her to the death of stoning. He took on the task of helping to raise the Savior.
And since I know it will come up…. the rosary focuses on Christ’s life….except for the last three Glorious mysteries. Every decade is about Christ, before his birth to his death and resurrection. Its basically a meditation on HIS LIFE, not Mary’s. Catholics hold in her in high esteem and respect because she said YES to GOD! Jesus gave her to US when he was dying on the Cross. In a way, she became everyone’s mom.
Interesting thought.
I do not have any images in my house of God, Jesus, or saints.
However, I don’t think anyone would call it unbecoming of a Protestant if I had artwork depicting Jesus–say, a reproduction of “The Last Supper” or even artwork depicting Jesus and Mary.
I do have pictures of my husband, myself, some friends, and my children, and my sister. I also have a fetal development poster on my wall. That doesn’t mean I worship any of those things–either the people the pictures show, or the pictures themselves.
Choosing to have portraits rather than statues of my friends is simply a decorative/cultural choice, really. If I have “statues” of small children–say, Hummel figurines–that represent my children–or the cake topper from my wedding cake–on a shelf–does that mean that I worship the people thus represented? No.
Some people greatly admire saints, ancient or modern day. Suppose for a moment I had a signed portrait of Billy Graham displayed in my home. If you saw such a thing in a Protestant’s home, would you assume it was so that I could devote to Graham, a dead saint, the worship that ought to belong only to Jesus? Or that he was simply a teacher I admired? The same could be true of the saints.
Let us suppose for a minute that I have a phone which, when I call someone or they call me, it displays their picture. I do not talk to the picture, but I do look at the picture when I talk to the person. The same is true when a Catholic talks to the deceased in Christ. They are not really talking to a statue. Having a representation of a person you love or admire does not imply worship.
The question is then reduced to, is it possible to communicate with the dead in Christ? I see no evidence that it is. (Catholics, what is the evidence?) But even if it is not possible, what they are doing is merely silly or perhaps superstitious, not blasphemous. It is no more sinful to ask Mary to pray for you–if it is possible–than to ask your earthly father to pray to you, or to write to a public figure and ask him or her to pray for you. If I wrote to Dave Ramsay and asked him to pray for me, you might wonder whether I was being a bit silly, but you would probably not label it idolatry on the level of worshiping Baal. Too much hero worship, perhaps. But if I only were asking him to pray for me, you wouldn’t think that I was putting him in the place of God.
(Not a Roman Catholic. Praying for the unity of the Universal Church.)
TS, I really don’t want to get back into this conversation again. I really don’t. It’s like beating my head against a brick wall, because I believe the deception is incredibly powerful. With just a slight stretch and some assumptions, anything is possible.
I have never heard anyone other than cult members even suggest that people can become angels. Angels are God’s messengers. Angels are heavenly beings which existed before humans. There is no Scriptural evidence that people become angels or that angels become people. Angels were not made in the image of God as humans were. My point, TS, is that anyone can speculate “why they think people could not be some type of angels” but this is extra-Biblical with no Scriptural backing. And I do believe that is the entire point of this discussion which sucked up my entire day yesterday. My husband said it’s a lost cause discussing this, and he’s right.
Please notice that the Bible does not say at the resurrection we will be “angels.” It says “like angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage.”
Mary gave birth to the HUMAN person of Jesus…yes, but he has TWO NATURES…human & divine….and since she gave birth to the 2nd person of the Trinity, she is the MOTHER OF GOD (God the SON that is).
That depends on whether or not you believe Christ existed in Heaven before He existed on earth, and the Bible makes clear that He did indeed exist in Heaven first. Therefore God the Son, despite not yet being born to earth as a human, existed prior to His earthly incarnation. I believe Mary the mother of Jesus is more accurate, as she is not the mother of the Trinity. Semantics, maybe, but “mother of God” is misleading in my opinion.
No, this is not what you said. You said this: ”
We should not put anything above Christ – not even statues of His earthly mother.”
Yes, that’s what I said, but it isn’t what I meant, so sorry about that. It should read “not even His earthly mother.”
especially given the fact that it was formally defined all the way back in AD 431, which means it was believed by many Christians much earlier than that.
*sigh* We’re just not going to agree on this. During that time period, MANY things – what I would call “extra Biblical heresies” were put forth. These doctrines, if so crucial and true and if believed by the Church at the earliest point, would have most likely been enumerated in the Bible. (Even your belief in purgatory, from a deuterocanonical book, seems to be pulled out of thin air when you actually read the source it supposedly came from.) In my opinion, the practices of the CC today are light years away from what the early church established.
We will just not agree. I have a great respect for the CC’s stance on life. But for me personally, that is as far as it will ever go. There is far too much in the CC that I believe borders on and even enters into heresy. The stretching and twisting of different meanings (“like” angels said to mean “angels,” stands out as one I can think of right now) reminds me of the multiple discussions I’ve had with various cult members.
I’m sure Paladin will have a book for me here eventually (lol) and everyone will applaud him for the genius that he is, while no other Protestant bothered to write their views here. Ok. Fine. And of course, I know why. Head against brick wall. Pointless. Divisive. But I had to speak my mind. Catholics are NOT the only people who frequent this site, and it gets really difficult to continually read things I believe are completely against Scripture coming from the mouths of some people I respect.
So, I’m done now. You can type, but I won’t read. I have to save my own sanity somehow today.
Take care.
I just really want my big black lab to be waiting in heaven for me when I die. Maybe he’ll be an angel. Yeah!
PS–his name is Deacon!!
Let me be clear, the Catholic Church has never taught that when we die and go to heaven we will be angels. That is silly.
The Bible does say that we will be like the angels. Wow, there is some food for contemplation.
Maybe Kel won’t see this, but I have to clarify in case others misinterpret. The Catholic Church does not teach that we become angels when we enter heaven. Angels are completely different creations than humans.
When we honor Mary, we are acting in accordance with Sacred Scripture.
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Luke 1:43
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. Luke 1:48
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. John 19:26-27
For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother… Matthew 15:4
honor your father and your mother… Matthew 19:19
“Honor your father and mother.” Ephesians 6:2
Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land the LORD your God is giving you. Exodus 20:12
The question is then reduced to, is it possible to communicate with the dead in Christ? I see no evidence that it is. (Catholics, what is the evidence?) But even if it is not possible, what they are doing is merely silly or perhaps superstitious, not blasphemous.
Do you only believe in what you can see? If the Virgin or a saint came and talked with you, would you check into a mental ward? Or blame it on that fall as a child? Do you think saints who have claimed to have been visited by dead saints were liars or just nuts?
You have no concrete evidence for many biblical claims and will never see any of it with your own eyes. Yet you still believe.
I’m okay with being called silly but not with being called blasphemous.
Who is it that is messing with myrtle’s stove?
WARNING: KILOBYTE-LONG post, again! (Sorry!)
Kel wrote:
Paladin, you know I love ya, man. I’m the Paladin fan club president! :D You’re never tiresome.
:) You’re also generous and kind to a fault, milady!
Well, at the risk of being the Lone Ranger Protestant willing to post here at this point, here I go…
Please do remember: I (and I can only speak for myself safely, here) have no desire to “crouch in the verbal bushes, waiting to ambush you with a ‘gotcha’ moment”! I find these issues to be important and complex, and I find you to be a thoughtful and wise partner in this conversation; and I promise you that you need not fear any “crowing in triumph” from me, nor need you fear any “Aha! This *proves* that you need to become Catholic, this instant! I have an RCIA entry form, right here…!” :)
[paladin]
and [Jesus] communicated Himself to us in many ways beyond the Bible.
[Kel]
This depends on what exactly you mean by this. He sent the Holy Spirit, who would “guide us into all Truth.” Oh, and the reason why I object to anyone saying the CC is the pillar and bulwark of Truth is because I believe Jesus is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” and that “no one comes to the Father” except through Him. He is the Truth.
Of course, He is. But He, Who inspired the sacred Scriptures, caused St. Paul to write the following: “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) It is Our Lord Who introduces that idea, not I. I would add, however, that the idea of the Church being the means by which Christ’s grace flows to us (and the means by which Christ saves us) goes far beyond a few “proof-texts” (though such do exist); again, whole letters and books have been written about this, since the earliest centuries of the Church.
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2)
“Even as I have delivered them to you.” I assume you are stating you think none of these traditions Paul mentions were written in Scripture?
Not at all. I merely refuse to assume that every last one of these traditions was contained in Scripture. If even one such tradition is not in Scripture, then the idea of “sola Scriptura” falls to pieces on that fact alone (to say nothing of the fact that “sola Scriptura” is both logically self-contradictory and practically unworkable).
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Sure, but what kind of things are we talking about here? Mary veneration? Praying to the saints?
I’m sure I don’t know; neither do you. In this specific instance, I was fulfilling my promise to “show Scriptural quotes which prove extra-Biblical revelation of God”, and nothing more; and I think I’ve done so.
Wikipedia states: “Christian devotion to Mary goes back to the 2nd century and predates the emergence of a specific Marian liturgical system in the 5th century, following the First Council of Ephesus in 431.
(*wry look*) With all due respect to the august source known as Wikipedia: devotion to the Blessed Virgin (though perhaps informal and non-ritualized) reached back to the earthly lifetime of the Blessed Virgin, herself! The praise given to her by the Archangel Gabriel (cf. Luke 1:28-38), St. Elizabeth (cf. Luke 1:39-56) and Simeon (Luke 2:35), her steadfast presence at the foot of the cross (multiple references), and her presence at the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (cf. Acts 1:12-14) were not overlooked by the early Church. The Church Fathers repeatedly, and from the very beginnings, saw Mary as “the New Eve” who (through her cooperation with, and obedience to, God’s Will) helped to undo the damage done by the first Eve:
blockquote
That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.
-St. Irenaeus (c.120-200 A.D., disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist (Beloved Disciple)
/blockquote
Not only was this written in the 2nd century, but it was written with a tone that suggested a well-established tradition in that regard; it met with no “hue and cry” that would have been expected from any “outrageous invention or innovation”. If the early Church was offended by this apparent “blasphemous innovation”, it certainly kept its indignation to itself. (That’s rather telling, in fact; which, of the two, seems to come later in the History of the Church: devotion to the Blessed Virgin, or condemnations of devotion to the Blessed Virgin (which I only find after the 1500’s, with John Calvin, et al.?)
I might also add that Martin Luther, for all his errors, was very devoted to the Blessed Virgin [1], believed that she was both ever-virgin (i.e. no other biological Children [2]) and conceived without Original Sin (i.e. immaculately conceived [3]), believed that she was the Mother of God (“theotokos” [4]), and even called her “Queen of Heaven”. If you seek to rid yourself of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, I suspect you’ll necessarily set yourself against Martin Luther, who gave you a great many of your beliefs (e.g. sola Scriptura, sola fide, etc.)
References:
[1] “She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.” (Martin Luther, Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
[2] Even in the only confessional statement of faith by him that was officially adopted by the Lutheran church and incorporated into the official collection of the Book of Concord of 1580 . . . – the Smalcald Articles of 1537, the Latin text contained the words (which did not, however, appear in the German version): “from Mary, pure, holy, and Ever-Virgin [ex Maria pura, sancta, Semper Virgine].” (Pelikan, Jaroslav; Mary Through The Ages, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, 159; footnote #32: Smalcald Articles, I,4, in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1952, 414)
[3] “Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person.” (Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, edited by John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996, 291)
[4] (see #1)
[5] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, The American Edition, Jaroslav J. Pelikan & Helmut Lehmann, eds., 55 vols., (St. Louis & Philadelphia: CPH & Fortress Press, 1955-1986), 7:573)
[Paladin]
:) Flag on the play, 10 yard penalty, milady! (Sorry… a bit of random levity!) Seriously, though: that boils down to saying, “The New Testament is necessary, because it says so in the New Testament!”
[Kel]
Really, Paladin? The redemption through the Messiah was foretold in Genesis 3. As I stated before, the foreshadowing of Christ is all throughout the Old Testament.
Of course; but remember two things:
1) Our original exchange dealt with our answer to the [hypothetical] question, “Are you saying that reliance upon the Old Testament alone isn’t enough?” You replied that “That’s because the Gospel message found in the New Testament through Christ is obviously the only way to the Father, as Christ Himself said.” Surely you see that, without the NT, it’s impossible to know (without oral tradition, or other extra-Biblical sources) what Christ said?
2) It’s quite possible to read the OT, see the Messiah foreshadowed, and yet completely miss the fact that Jesus was the Messiah (consider modern Jews, Muslims, etc.)… to say nothing of knowing that the partcilular books we have in the NT are actual and authentic descriptions of what He (and His Church) said! More on that idea, below.
[Paladin]
nor does it say that it contains all revelation necessary for salvation
[Kel]
Whoa… hold the phone, there. What kind of revelation are we talking about here?
Self-revelation of God, revelation by God of our nature, our purpose, and how to unite with Him and His children (via His Church) forever in Heaven. We’re talking about all revelation which pertains to our eternal salvation.
That Jesus Christ is the Messiah, who died for our sins, was raised, and now sits at the right hand of the Father? Because the confession that Christ is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead is a confession of faith (Romans 10:9, 10)
That is all true. Nowhere, however, does anything say that this one, isolated article of Faith is SUFFICIENT for one’s salvation; and the Bible explicitly says as much.
[Paladin]
nor can it possibly interpret itself
[Kel]
Scripture interpreting Scripture is a very reliable practice which is used by Bible translators and historians, so I’m not sure what you mean by this.
Scripture cannot interpret Scripture, since Scripture is text on a page, and it does not change. (I assume you’re speaking metaphorically about HUMANS interpreting Scripture by means of text-comparisons, examinations of historical context, etc.?) We, by ourselves, can only make guesses as to the meaning of any given Scripture passage. Some passages are clear enough to be understood fairly easily, with minimal aid; but others are extremely difficult, and guesses would not be enough… as St. Peter warns, very sternly:
blockquote
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. (2 Peter 3:15-17)
/blockquote
(Note: the distortion of the meaning of Scripture, even in ignorance [and not in malice], is not trivial: it can result in our own [spiritual/eternal] destruction!)
[Paladin]
nor did it choose its own contents!
[Kel]
This is true (or should I say, “Duh!”) :D
Well… you do recognize the problem, then? “SOla Scriptura” is utterly unable to explain how the specific books of the Bible were recognized as “true, inspired Scripture”; there were many “contenders” for “biblical membership”, after all! Some such “contenders” were obviously spurious (e.g. Gospel of Thomas, etc.), but others were good and wholesome books which simply happened not to be true Scripture (e.g. Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Book of Jubilees, etc.). The Bible obviously couldn’t have chosen the contents of the Bible; so when someone says, “If it isn’t in the Bible, I won’t believe it!”, they say a very bizarre thing… since they can give no clear accounting of why, for example, the Letter of St. Paul to Philemon is in the Bible at all! Some parts of the Bible are positively dull and uninspiring for a faith-walk (e.g. portions of Leviticus, Numbers, Chronicles, etc., with battle statistics, census data, numbers of sacrifices, etc.), so any appeal to “feeling inspired” simply isn’t reliable.
But more to the point: the contents of that “Gospel” are precisely what we seek to find, here; and I’d argue that it’s not simply the 4 Gospels, so-called.
See, when I see things like “so-called” it makes me really edgy. This is what I mean by the “perceived insult” to the Word of God. The Gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, died for our sins, rose again from the dead, and ascended to the Father so that we might be saved. This is the news of those four “so-called” Gospels.
I meant no insult, of course! But do you notice that you use “Gospel” and “Gospels” interchangeably on some occasions, while drawing distinctions between them on others? That’s partially my point: would you consider the texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and these alone, to be sufficient? Is the rest of the Bible disposable? These four ARE the “Gospels”, after all! Do you see? Your use of the word “Gospel” [singular] seems to be rather fluid, ill-defined and vague. Even your summary, above, says nothing about how we are to USE/APPROPRIATE such means of salvation, or about what means God chose to dispense such graces, or about difficult cases (e.g. what is the fate of a man who dies without ever hearing the Gospel? What is the fate of a mentally handicapped person who dies without being able to “believe on Jesus”?, etc.). It leaves far more unanswered than it ever answers… which means that it simply isn’t adequate to the task to which you put it, yes?
instead of “stretching” things, it appears that Luther and Calvin (in some ways, though not all, because I don’t fully agree with either of them) were attempting to simplify or make plain the Truth, rather than add to it things that are not made plain in Scripture.
I understand; but I’d suggest that your own opinions may be colouring your ideas and perceptions of what is “clarifying” the truth, vs. other actions. (I think especially of John 6 and 1 Cor 11, where the Eucharist–as the True Body and Blood of Jesus–is taught as explicitly as anyone would like, even on pain of having most of Jesus’ disciples LEAVE Him, and He never calls them back to “clarify/explain” their misunderstanding of His “metaphor/symbol”; it’s a side-issue to our specific point, to be sure, but do you not see that “clarify” vs. “distort” can be very much in the eye of the beholder?)
P.S. – you do realize that Martin Luther comes well before an awful lot of those dates surrounding the cementing of certain beliefs about Mary, yes?
That’s something of a loaded question: “cementing” of those beliefs would never have been necessary until the point when someone seriously CHALLENGED them (i.e. Calvin, Zwingli, etc.). If you mean to suggest that Marian devotion and beliefs and Church dogmas about her were not clearly established before Luther’s time, then you’re very much mistaken. And as I mentioned earlier, Luther (in particular) isn’t the best example for your case, since his devotion to the Blessed Mother was quite notable.
[Paladin]
But you go farther, and suggest that such devotion is inimical to the Faith… and that’s where I object.
[Kel]
Yes, I do. I feel that the devotion is entirely and completely misplaced.
I understand. But remember my original point: when you say that salvation comes through Christ alone, I (and any other faithful, well-informed Catholic) will agree with you, heart and soul. But when you claim not only that Marian devotion won’t HELP draw us to the means of that salvation, but that such devotions are HARMFUL BY DEFINITION, then you’re giving your mere feelings/opinions/personal tastes, and nothing more… and you’d need a bit more than that, to claim (objectively) that such devotion is “misplaced”.
I can drive around almost any town I’ve lived in and see a plethora of Mary statues (what’s with the statue thing, btw??) and none of Christ.
Hm. We have a statue of the Sacred Heart (i.e. Jesus), and a statue of the Blessed Virgin, side by side, in our front lawn. As for the “statue thing”: what, exactly, do you find objectionable about it? Please be specific.
It certainly gives off that impression. And maybe this is yet ANOTHER example of “well, that’s not true Catholic doctrine, just misinformed Catholics,” but if so, it’s pretty darn widespread.
My shortest (though woefully incomplete) answer to that is “nolo contendere”. Yes, it’s widespread; see my previous rant/post on that point. (I’d add, though, that widespread devotion to Mary is in no way counter to a right worship of Jesus Christ… any more than having numerous photos of one’s children in one’s house, while only having one painting of Our Lord, is implying a worship of your children, or a slighting of Christ.) The mere fact that something is widespread does not mean that it’s wrong.
[Paladin]
Well… I “work out my salvation with fear and trembling”, as did St. Paul (cf. Philippians 2:12); I expect to be judged by my works (cf. Revelation 20:12, repeated in 20:13); and I hope to be saved by persevering to the end (cf. Matthew 10:22 and 24:13, Mark 13:13). That’s what faithful and well-informed Catholics mean by that phrase.
[Kel]
“Saved by Christ and kept in Christ by persevering to the end” is how I suppose I would say it.
Well… Christ will not do so against our wills, or without our cooperation. At any give point, we can reject Him, and He is too much of a gentleman to force us to remain with Him, against our wills. He also entrusts us with true and real work, by which we will be judged. “Away from Me, you accursed, into the flames prepared for the Devil and his angels from the beginning of the world! For I was hungry and you gave me no food, etc.” Note that the condemned call Him “Lord”, when they ask, “When did we see you, etc.?” You’ll also note that St. James, in very severe language, squashes the idea that we can be justified by faith, apart from works (cf. James 2:14-26). God did not send us into His world to do nothing, after all; to put the matter rather severely: if we bury our talents, and do nothing with them, we can expect to meet His displeasure (cf. Matthew 25:30).
[Paladin]
[Devotions to Mary began] from the very beginnings… during the lifetimes of the Apostles.
[Kel]
Okay. I need some sources on this.
See above.
“Sinless” does not compute with me unless the term is applied to Christ.
It computed to Martin Luther! But that point aside: why is such a thing so extraordinary for you? Eve was sinless, when she was created, yes? And nothing “forced” her to fall…
I’m sorry, but if we’re all “doing the very same thing” as Mary, then why the excessive veneration? Oh, I see now… you believe she was sinless. Hmm. Which I obviously do not believe (was that doctrine established in 1854??).
We do some of the same things, yes… poorly, and sinfully, and weakly. One might as well ask why we need specialist doctors, since we all do the “same thing” (i.e. guard our health)…
Well, if that didn’t do it, then what you quoted to me earlier just made me exceedingly glad that I refused to read [Dr. Hahn’s] books.
(*wry look*) That sounds rather contrary for contrariness’ sake, Kel, and prejudicial. The wish is father to the thought, I suspect.
[Paladin]
The task, then, is to distinguish truth from error, true interpretation from distortion, and fact from fantasy… and that must be done with logic, not with personal preferences, personal tastes, or the like.
[Kel]
That must be done by making sure such doctrine is not contrary to God’s Word – unless you stretch it to mean extra things, that is. ;) Sorry, couldn’t resist…
:) Cute. But you touch on an important point: interpretation is not trivial, and it’s quite possible for even the holiest, most prayerful and knowledgeable believer to err in an interpretation of Scripture. Sola Scriptura, for example, yields the following beliefs, all of which are sincerely held by good, prayerful, generous, self-sacrificing, kind people whom you’d delight to meet while working with them in a soup kitchen, etc.:
1) The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the highest form of worship we can offer. [Catholic, Orthodox, etc.]
2) The Mass is blasphemous idolatry, and a damnable offense. [Assemblies of God, some non-denominational groups, etc.]
3) Baptism is necessary for salvation, and it regenerates the soul from the death of Original Sin. [Catholic, Orthodox, many Lutherans, etc.]
4) Baptism is only a symbol which represents one’s willful conversion to Christ, and it does not regenerate anything. [most non-denominational groups, etc.]
5) Sunday, the first day of the week, is the proper time on which to Worship God and keep the Sabbath holy, in honour of the Resurrection of Christ. [Catholic, Orthodox, virtually all mainline Protestant denominations, etc.]
6) Sunday worship is the “mark of the beast” referenced in the Book of Revelation, and doing so will damn one’s soul to hell; only Saturday is the proper Sabbath to keep holy. [Seventh Day Adventists]
7) Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man. [Most Christian traditions]
8) Jesus Christ is the highest of creatures (i.e. “a god”, cf. John 10:34), but not God. [Jehovah’s Witnesses]
9) Jesus Christ is Really Present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist. [Catholic, Orthodox, etc.]
10) The Eucharist is a mere symbol which reminds us of Jesus and His sacrifice/Last Supper. [Methodists, Presbyterians, most non-denominational groups, etc.]
11) Veneration of the Saints is good, proper, and aids one’s journey of Faith. [Catholic, Orthodox, some Lutheran, most Anglican, etc.]
12) Veneration of the Saints is idolatry and necromancy, and it is forbidden. [most non-denominational groups, etc.]
Do you see the problem? These cannot POSSIBLY be true at the same time… and most of these issues claim to be “make-or-break” issues of salvation and damnation! We can’t simply “pooh-pooh” them, or say, “to each his own”, if damnation could result! We need to find out what is true, and what is false… and the “Bible alone” simply can’t do that. Thousands of contradictory denominations, all of whom claim to adhere faithfully to “the Bible alone”, are the legacy of “sola Scriptura”… and without a “final court of appeals”–a reliable, infallible guide by which these things can be checked (and confirmed or denied, above and beyond mere opinion)–they are left to endure the contradictions and the uncertainty. I suggest to you that God would not have been so haphazard in providing for the people whom He died to save.
As for the “once saved, always saved,” – I don’t agree with that.
All right: but WHY NOT? Those who do believe in it almost always appeal to “the Bible alone”; what makes your “opinion” better, or more true, than theirs? What gives you certainly that your view is, in fact, RIGHT (and not simply your own personal taste)?
It’s kind of a misnomer, in a way, though… no one can technically “lose” their salvation, but they can certainly decide to reject Christ.
OSAS believers think that it’s impossible to reject Christ in any substantial (i.e. salvation-threatening) way. How do you show that they are mistaken?
Predestination – ummm… nope.
(?) All right… how do you refute the faithful, intelligent, sola-Scriptura Calvinists who believe it?
No, I wouldn’t consider the condemnation of human cloning to be a doctrine, period.
I think you may have mistaken my meaning. I claimed that human cloning is objectively wrong… not simply a matter of opinion. Do you agree? If so (or if not), how do you use the Bible to justify your position?
[Kel]
I ask living people to pray for me here on this earth, but I do not communicate with the dead or with those who have passed on. Deut. 18:11
[Paladin]
Nor do I communicate with the dead. Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:27, Hebrews 12:1, etc. But I do think you communicate with at least one Person Who “passed on”–that is, if you pray to Jesus! Surely you believe He died, yes?
[Kel]
Oh, you made me laugh with this one! Jesus rose from the dead. :)
Of course! But that’s the point: the Saints are not dead! Jesus Himself said so (see above for references)! What more do you wish, for testimony? Moses was certainly not a stiff, unmoving corpse when he encountered Jesus on Mount Thabor, during the Transfiguration, for example.
[Kel]
And as for the line I so often hear about how the saints are “alive in Christ,” this is correct,
[Paladin]
Er… then why bring up the issue at all?
[Kel]
Because talking to the dead is an occult practice which God said we are not to participate in.
But that’s my whole point: if talking to the dead (which really means “conjuring the dead”, as I think you already know–a rather different thing) is wrong, and the Saints are NOT dead, then this restriction from Deuteronomy does not apply. Any Catholic could easily say, in other words: “Yes, quite! I am forbidden to try to communicate with the dead! I will, therefore, restrict myself to communicating with those who are alive, such as the Saints in Heaven [and the saints on earth, as well]!”
I think you miss the point here – people who pray for me ARE praying to Christ.
Do you imagine that the Saints in Heaven do NOT?
Why on earth would I ask a “saint” who has passed on to “pray for me” when Christ Himself is my mediator and intercessor? I don’t get it.
For the same reason that you ask other humans who still live on earth to pray for you: because it’s a good thing to do, and God approves (and even commands) it! Why go to your mother, friend, husband, etc., and ask them to pray, when you can go straight to Jesus Christ, the Only Mediator?
My wife pointed out an excellent example of this idea (of intercession), in fact, and it was recently in the daily Mass readings: when the Centurian begged Jesus to come and heal his servant, he did not come, himself; he sent friends to intercede for him. When Jesus offered to come, the centurian sent MORE servants to tell Him NOT to come personally, since he considered Himself unworthy, and that he trusted that his message through his friends/servants would suffice. It takes great faith to trust that a petition through one of God’s friends in Heaven (the Saints) will be answered, without going to Jesus directly (which is always allowed, but not always required in every instance)… and Jesus was amazed at the Centurian’s great faith. Can you see the similarity?
Also, regarding saints – I have a question: Do you beseech Moses and Elijah to pray for you as well? I’ve not heard mention of doing anything like that, so I’m curious.
Absolutely, I do; they are recognized Saints (though they’ve been moved off the active liturgical calendar, partially to make room for the plethora of newer Saints).
Whoops: one glaring error (aside from the many formatting issues) in the above comment:
Sola Scriptura, for example, yields [at least] the [second of each of the] following beliefs, all of which are sincerely held by good, prayerful, generous, self-sacrificing, kind people whom you’d delight to meet while working with them in a soup kitchen, etc.:
Catholic and Orthodox doctrines are not the result of “sola Scriptura”, of course.
Er… Kel, I do hope you don’t think I write all of this for applause… right? One of your comments made me wonder, on that point.
You’re certainly free to comment and read, or not, as you see fit; I’ll think none the less of you for that. But I’d offer three short things (as opposed to my normal “tomes”):
1) I write what I write to defend the Church from mistaken criticism, not because I’m trying to convert anyone. I’ve said as much, repeatedly, before now.
2) These issues must be faced by every honest Christian, sooner or later. Take time off, if you need to do so (as I do, on occasion); but I ask that you not simply slam the door shut on it. That would be prejudice (and, in the worst case, moral cowardice), not faith.
3) Truth cannot contradict truth. If something proves to be logically impossible, then it matters not if we have a passionate attachment to it; it must be discarded, and we must then look for the actual truth. It’s far easier to claim that one’s opponents are “deceived” than it is to prove the point; it’s far easier to write off one’s debate opponents as “merely clever with words” that it is to research the possibility that a given statement (however loathsome it might “feel”) might be true.
Points to ponder?
Er… Kel, I do hope you don’t think I write all of this for applause… right?
No, Paladin, I know that.
I haven’t read your other post. Not sure if I’m going to – nothing personal, though, seriously. :)
But what about my dog???
:) No worries, Kel. Do what you can, when you can, as God leads.
Courtnay: God says that the lamb will lie down with the lion, in the Kingdom, so there’s precedent for animals in Heaven! :) (If you want a more serious commentary on that, read “The Problem of Pain” and/or “The Great Divorce”, both by C.S. Lewis.)
Theresa, Lrning and others,
I want to thank you so much for taking the time to read my posts and critique with regard to our catholic catechism. It is a blessing and grace to be shown where my views differ. I readily confess that all my talk of angels was/is just me tossing things around in my head. Now with regard to people becoming angels when Jesus resurrects us on Judgement day; I really see no reason why people would be so incredulous about that. I have not come across any authoritative teaching about what we will be like at resurrection other than Jesus words that we will be like angels so why would people doubt it so? What do you see yourself as on resurrection day? I have had my personal revelations in prayerful communion with the angels and the saints. So what interset me most is this. Though not directly supported by the catechism, is there anything you have come across about my view where I see the possibilty of myself ‘like’ an angel giving never ending thanks and praise and service (even a messenger if God deems it so) to God that directly contradicts any of the catholic teaching on the subject.
There is no Scriptural evidence that people become angels or that angels become people.
Kel, to the best of my knowledge there is no scriptural evidence disproving that we become some kind of angels. In fact the only scriptural evidence given is that Jesus tells us we will be ‘like’ angels. Plus the fact that we know that there are currently angelic beings in heaven so it seems to be a concept that is copacetic with living in heaven. Without any contradictory scriptures I think I’ll just assume Jesus had it right and that His is the only evidence we have to go by. If you have other contrary evidence then I ask you to provide it.
Theresa, why do you think it is silly that we could be resurrected as angelic beings? What part of catholic catechism makes you disregard the possibility out of hand like that? I think St Anthony is an angel in heaven right now delivering lots of prayers and messages to and from God in the name of Jesus Christ.
The question is then reduced to, is it possible to communicate with the dead in Christ? I see no evidence that it is. (Catholics, what is the evidence?)
ycw, I will let one of the other catholics who are more studied in catechism give you the correct catholic answer. The miracles and intercession of the saints is documented in catalogues that one could spend a lifetime reading.
I can tell you that for me it was a matter of faith to call upon intercession of the saints in name of Jesus Christ and the results have been answered prayers so my evidence is personal.
St Anthony has returned lost treasures (both animate and inanimate) to me in incredible ways. One time I went hiking and lost a key that was tied onto a cylindrical key ring. Upon realizing I lost the key I traced my steps back and forth through that path (approximately four miles of hiking and did not see that key anywhere. I said a prayer to St. Anthony and literally at that moment I looked down and the key came rolling right in front of me.
That may sound ‘silly/trivial’ to you but I had crossed that same spot in the path three times prior looking for that key and that kind of ‘sillyness’ with regard to finding lost things has happened again and again and again. St. Anthony also has helped me find lost children of mine when they went astray. My personal experience leaves me a firm believer in his intercession.
I join in daily prayer with the Archangels and the saints to protect me and my family from the wiles and temptations of the devil and to assist me in my wants and needs “if granting these petitions would be for the greater glory of God”. And always make my petitions for intercession in the name of Jesus Christ.
I have had my personal revelations in prayerful communion with the angels and the saints.
Hi truthseeker, I was having reoccurring dreams where I was searching through my mailbox which was jammed with envelops. I did not know what I was looking for and always woke up before I found anything other than envelops.
I then had another dream where a piece of parchment paper slowly floated down from the sky. (In this dream, I knew this note was from heaven). The paper softly landed on a small wooden circle-top table. The note read, “Pray the Rosary”. I seldom prayed the rosary during my adulthood.
One afternoon my friend called to tell me she had lost her cross necklace. This necklace had a lot of sentimental value and she wore it often. My friend had recently been shopping in my town and thought she may have lost the necklace during this trip. I told my friend that I would check with the area shops. I also mentioned that I would pray that her necklace be found.
This brought up the topic of praying. My friend was raised Lutheran but she has always expressed interest in the rosary and felt close to the Virgin Mary. Sue asked me if I had ever seen a “finger” rosary. I told her I had not and she described what one looked like. An older fellow at her job had shown her one that he carries in his wallet. She mentioned that she found this tiny rosary very interesting and I talked of wanting to see one someday.
The next day I walked to the end of my block to check the mail. I don’t remember if I had paper mail that day or not, but lying on the ground at the base of my mailbox was one of those small rosaries that my friend had described to me the day before. I believe this was the “mail” I had been searching for in my dreams!
I went in the house and called my friend, very excited by the “mail”. Statistics were running through my head — Oh, me of little faith! I asked myself what were the odds of finding an item that I had never seen before and had just conversed about the day before? Add to it the odds of finding it below my mailbox after recently having mailbox and a rosary dream.
Shortly after our conversation, my friend called me back. She had received two phone calls since we last talked. One was a shop that had called her to let her know they found her necklace. Another was a call from a restaurant. Someone had found her pocketbook that she had lost a year earlier.
Blessed Mother Pray for Us in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ!
truthseeker, you can read about angels in the Catechism paragraphs 328 – 336. The angels are non-corporeal beings (pure spirit). In heaven, we will have glorified bodies. This is one major way we differ from angels.
He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself. Philippians 3:21
When I have more time I will see if I can find more information for you. In addition to the Catechism, check out the footnotes for those paragraphs. They will lead you to Scripture versus and other documents that have more information.
Thanks Lrning for adding a second scripture passage to my search for what we will be like in heaven.
So far scripturally now I have two passages:
1) Jesus tells us we will have no need for marriage in heaven cause we wil be like angels.
“At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.” Mt 22:30
2) Scripture tells us Jesus will ”change our lowly body” into something that conforms with his glorified body.
“He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself.” Ph 3:21
Kel,
Just so you know I was not applauding Paladin and Jacqueline’s posts as any sort of slight to you, but b/c I thought they were such good explanations of Catholic belief on these issues. I had been thinking about the thread all day and then I came on and saw several posts that expressed perfectly what I had not been able to (in my own head let alone in writing). I respect your willingness to engage (especially as the only one representing your position which is never easy). I’m not saying you need to come back and read the other posts – that’s up to you. It just seemed to be a sore spot in your sign off – so I wanted to clarify.
1Cor 15:35-58 deals specifically with what theologically the properties of our resurrected bodies must be.
“This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” 1Cor 15:50-52
So far scripturally now I have three passages:
1) Jesus tells us we will have no need for marriage in heaven cause we wil be like angels.
“At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.” Mt 22:30
2)Paul tells us that God will ”change our lowly body” into something that conforms with his glorified body.
“He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself.” Ph 3:21
3)In 1Cor 15:50;52 Paul declares that flesh and blood cannot inheritit the kingdom of God. And that our bodies will get ‘changed’ somehow.
“This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption” 1Cor 15:50
Truthseeker,
There seems to me to be a big difference between being like an angel and actually becoming an angel. Someone else mentioned Phi. 3:20-21 which says, “…our commonwealth is in Heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power which enables Him even to subject all things to Himself.”
So we know that eventually, we will be united with our bodies again, but they will be like Christ’s glorified body. More awesome food for contemplation! Imagine, we will have glorified bodies and be like the angels. Double Wow!
One more scripture to reference on this is 2Cor 3:18 which again talks about our corporal being getting transformed and ‘assimilated’ if you will into the glorified body of Christ. It is also my understanding that Jesus will also be going through changes with us as we get assimilated with Jesus into eternal life with God the Father. So in summary, from the scriptures I have read about this is that unlike angels who are only spiritual; we will retain our corporal nature but in a transformed way (my best guess would be some kind energy; perhaps one single light beam emanating from a ball of light known as the glorified Body of Christ) and our spirit will also go through a change that will make our spiritual existence into one more like the angels have. I am satisfied with that as my answer unless someone can contradict it either based on scriptures or catholic catechisis. This is wild fun :<}
1) Jesus tells us we will have no need for marriage in heaven cause we wil be like angels.
“At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.” Mt 22:30
2)Paul tells us that God will ”change our lowly body” into something that conforms with his glorified body.
“He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself.” Ph 3:21
3)In 1Cor 15:50;52 Paul declares that flesh and blood cannot inheritit the kingdom of God. And that our bodies will get ’changed’ somehow.
“This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption” 1Cor 15:50
4) In 2 Cor3:18 Paul asserts we will be transformed into the same is that is the Lord who is the Spirit.
“All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit.”
2Cor 3:18
There seems to me to be a big difference between being like an angel and actually becoming an angel.
I agree Theresa. And right now I believe it is because we will have a spiritual being that gets changed into a being likened to angels , but unlike angels who are purely spiritual beings , we will also have (and will maintain) our corporal being; only our corporeal being will be changed from our bodies the way we know them into some incorruptible form. Praise and glory to God for ages upon ages!
Kel,
The bible says that we are justified by faith and also that we are justified by works.
It is both/and not either/or. If you would like pertinent scriptures, let me know.
Thanks for your consideration.
Someone once told me that the difference between contraception and NFP can be compared to the difference between bulimia and fasting. I think that that is a pretty apt analogy that shouldn’t need any clarification.
Food for thought, no pun intended.
Hi, Truthseeker,
I don’t have much time at the moment (and several other commenters already filled in some of these details), but just for the record: angels and humans are two completely different “species”; angels not only do not have bodies, but they are not “designed” to have bodies; humans are a unity of body and soul, and are not “designed” to be without bodies. When we die, but before the end of time (when our bodies will be raised and reunited to our souls), we’ll be in an unusual and somewhat “unnatural” state; we were never meant to be “spirits” alone (as the angels are). As such, we do not become angels, and angels do not become human.
But do be aware: if we are saved at the end of our lives, we will most certainly praise God fully and completely and joyfully (and experience the fulness of His love, face-to-Face), as surely as will any angel… and since we belong to the Communion of Saints, we will most certainly be able to help (through our prayers) our loved ones on earth; we don’t need to “change our species” in order to get the benefits of which you’ve been dreaming!
(Wow, that was a long sentence!)
Kel,
The bible says that we are justified by faith and also that we are justified by works.
It is both/and not either/or. If you would like pertinent scriptures, let me know.
Thanks for your consideration.
Food for thought: http://carm.org/are-we-justified-faith-romans-or-works-james
Kel,
Justification by Faith AND Works is not contradictory. It is simply both/and. And none of it is possible without God’s Grace.
Theresa, did you read the link that I provided?
The problem with “sola fide” is NOT the “fide”… it’s the “sola”! The Bible does not contradict itself in the least… since the Bible nowhere says that one can be saved by faith ALONE. Of course faith is necessary for salvation! But it’s not meant to work ALONE, nor CAN it work ALONE.
I agree Paladin, And also since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God our corporeal bodies will need to undergo a change that unites with the glorified body of Christ and we will pass into the Kingdom through/within Jesus.
Faith without works following as a result of that faith is really no faith at all.
Are we saying the same thing here? :D I’m confused.
The scope of God’s mercy through Jesus Crist is endless. People who celebrate the Lord’s day on the Sabbath and people who don’t. People who practice contraception and people who don’t. People who sin a lot and people who seldom sin. Salvation through Jesus Christ is much more an inclusive then exclusive. But the gate is narrow and to those who much is given much will be expected. Where there is sin grace abounds even greater that we all might be saved.
:) Well… C.S. Lewis once said (in “Mere Christianity”, I think?) that asking whether faith or works was more important was a bit like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is more important; the question is meaningless, since faith alone cannot save (James 2:24, etc.), and works alone cannot save (cf. 1 Corinthians 13, etc.), and they must work (no pun intended) together.
I’ve heard it said: “It’s not a question of ‘faith OR works’… and it’s not even a question of ‘faith AND works’… but it’s really ‘faith THAT works’.” So yes, we may be saying the same thing with different words. I was just trying to “stomp upon” the error which says that “faith alone, apart from works, saves us”… which is unbiblical nonsense.
I’ve heard it said: “It’s not a question of ‘faith OR works’… and it’s not even a question of ‘faith AND works’… but it’s really ‘faith THAT works’.” So yes, we may be saying the same thing with different words. I was just trying to “stomp upon” the error which says that “faith alone, apart from works, saves us”… which is unbiblical nonsense.
I think we are saying the same thing, LOL! It’s not really faith – and you aren’t really saved – if there aren’t works (life change and deeds done in accordance with one’s faith) that follow. Yes?
Yes Kel,
and btw regarding your earlier question about praying with Moses and Elijah - If I ever thought I needed a fiery chariot to destroy a perceived evil I would not hesitate to call upon Elijah to come down and take care of the Lord’s business in the Name of Jesus Christ; if answering my request would be for the greater glory of God.
Just for reference: St. Elijah’s feast day is on July 20 (though it’s not on the new liturgical calendar, it can still be celebrated privately, and during Masses where the old [Tridentine] calendar is used), and St. Moses’ feast day is September 4 (ditto, above). The two are definitely recognized by the Church as Saints (in Heaven), and public liturgical veneration of them (inclusion in the Litany of Saints, and even Churches being named after them, etc.) is allowed.
References from the inimitable Fr. Z:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/20-july-st-elijah-prophet-2/
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/holy-moses/
Kel said: Theresa, did you read the link that I provided?
Yes, that is why I pointed out that Justification by Works and Justification by Faith are not contradictory.
God’s grace is what saves us.
Paladin,
My husband and I are big fans of Fr. Z. He is awesome and brilliant, and dare I say, Holy?
Apologetics – A Scriptural justification on praying to angels and saints:
Protestants express a hesitancy to invoke assistance of angels and saints during prayer cause scripture says that Jesus alone is the one and only mediator between God and man. Catholics would agree with protestants on that point. When we invoke angels and saints in the Name of Jesus; Jesus is our mediator cause all power and all justification comes from the use of his Name. When invoking the angels and saints for assistance ‘in the name of Jesus; then Jesus is still the mediator of the petition and the saint is the vessel that Jesus is delivering the grace through.
Ask yourself why did Jesus give the apostles power to perform miracles here on earth? Why didn’t he just make everybody come directly to him for help? One purpose for Jesus giving the apostles miraculous power is shown to us in the scriptures is when the apostles give glory to God by casting out demons and healing one another and even raising people from the dead in the name of Jesus.
I also look at the example Jesus gives to us at Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan river. John the Baptist tells Jesus that he doesn’t feel worthy enough to baptise him but Jesus insists John baptize him anyway so that all righteousness could be fulfilled. If Jesus could accept blessing and the grace of the Holy Spirit coming upon him through a human vessel then we should also open ourselves up to these graces per his example.