Posted on 01/05/2002 11:55:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
That is how you can tell true servants of Christ. They don't boast about themselves. They are humble--and they serve others in love. They don't tear down others with incessant condemnation. They show others the way to Christ by living the true meaning of the gospel. They love their neighbor as themself.
We think your roots are bad. In other words, we think you are not really rooted in the Scriptures. This is why you RCs say that CCWoody and I are neither priests nor saints, when God calls us both.
I don't think that you will get to the bottom of the abortion issue until you figure out the true nature of our complaints.
It is not "the Pope's claims," my fellow Christian. It is the claim of ALL CHRISTIANS for 2000 years.
PLEASE, please, read this timeline VERY CAREFULLY. Then we can discuss whose claims it is in an informed fashion.
Some history of Christian thought on Birth Control:
(Note: The quotes of the early church fathers can be researched in their entirety, courtesy of Calvin College.)
191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (2:10:91:2) "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (2:10:95:3).
307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (6:20)
"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (6:23:18).
325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1
"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy"
375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (26:5:2 ).
391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew
"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (28:5).
393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1:19).
419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence
"I am supposing, then, although are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (1:15:17).
522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (1:12).
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) -
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -
Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
(Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox [protestant]theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it." )
1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage)
"Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
1965 AD - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II
Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (51)
1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)
Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)
1993 AD - Catechism of the Catholic Church
"The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." (2399)
After reading the above statements it should be clear that this is not simply "the Pope's claims."
Must be Nazarenes huh? .
Hey I was thinking about you this morning I awoke to a hysterical sermon on the radio. The man preaching read the tests you need to take BEFORE you have a family ....I thought of you because legos was part of it
I found the link ,you will roll on the floor...this is my Bradd LOL to you for today LINK
Right hand corner is todays message......go to the potty first *grin*
C'mon momof 7, you understand what I'm trying to say. Even if we disagree on scripture interpretation, I know full well you are a Christian of good will. I can see it in your zeal and passion.
I do not blame it on protestants. I blame it on the apostacy of protestantism on contraception, which only started in 1930. It only happened because of "private interpretation of scripture," which you and I agree is a wholly protestant phenomenon.
Whether individual Catholics follow the clear teaching of the Church on contraception is a moot point. (I hope and pray I have helped some undecided Catholics to look into their own Church's teachings more fully, and examine their own motives.)
Morality simply is not a popularity contest. My mom always said, "if everyone is jumping off a cliff..."
Well, Christianity always considered contraception to be in the same class of sin as adultery, homosexuality and murder, i.e., grave or mortal sin that breaks our relationship with God (but only if we knew it was wrong, God does not condemn those invincibly ignorant).
So why did protestantism change? What are the fruits of that change? What are the roots of that change?
And why are these questions so difficult for protestants to face.
Finally, when there IS a good alternative, why the fight?
The Catholic Church supports the most effective, inexpensive, and safe method known to modern science. The Sympto-thermal method of Natural Family Planning, not to be confused with the less effective rhythm method, has been proven to be 95 to 99% effective. An article in the British Medical Journal (certainly not biased towards Catholicism) of March 1993 entitled "Natural Family Planning: Effective Birth Control Supported by the Catholic Church," states:
"Increasingly studies show that rates equivalent to those with other contraceptive methods are readily achieved . . . Indeed, a [World Health Organization] study of 19843 poor women in India had a pregnancy rate approaching zero [99.2%] . . . whatever the standpoint there is no doubt that it would be more efficient for the ongoing world debate on overpopulation, resources, environment, poverty, and health to be conducted against a background of truth rather than fallacy. It is therefore important that the misconception that Catholicism is synonymous with ineffective birth control is laid to rest. Understanding the simple facts about the signs of fertility confers considerable power to couples to control their fertility, for achieving as well as preventing conception."
I think every thread ever posted on religion on FR has displayed your use of my analogy against us. What has come of it?
This thread might well be the first of its kind on FR: A Catholic asks some tough questions. For once, we Catholics are not in the continual defensive posture that anti-Catholics have put us in here on FR. For once, protestants are sitting squarely in our shoes, answering tough questions. And it is apparent that it makes them uncomfortable. Rightly so. And now that you are in our shoes, I want an simple answer:
Why did protestantism apostatize on a moral teaching, about a type of sin that Christianity, ALL OF IT, not just Popes, has always condemned? What justification was there for changing a constant teaching of ALL OF CHRISTIANITY?
And was this change common sense? Was it inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Or was it apostacy?
If the latter (it must be, for 1930 years, ALL CHRISTIANS taught it was gravely sinful, equally sinful to adultery, homosexuality, and in the view of some reformers, murder), what about the central dogma of protestantism that allowed such apostacy, namely private interpretation of scripture?
This apostacy on contraception is throughout all segements of non-Catholic Christianity. Only Catholics hold to the biblical and historical truth.
Why?
Tough questions, I admit, but they demand an answer as we face the juggernaut of the Culture of Death.
What I am saying, what I said on another thread (see link below), is that Paul is telling us that justification is by faith plus NOTHING. And James is warning potentially presumptuous sinners that REAL faith DOES produce works which MEN will SEE.
WELL, HOW ABOUT REV 3:1-2 "...I know the reputation you have of being alive, when in fact you are dead!...I find that the sum of your DEEDS is less than complete in the sight of my God."
LET'S SEE WHAT JESUS SAID: Matt 24: 35 etc. "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink..."
My point in bringing these quotations up, is that these are works as judged by GOD.
Both of these points are in the Protestant formula stated so beautifully by John Calvin.
Didn't he also talk about predestination? I understand that's pretty much gone by the wayside... Furthermore, I your defense of Luther's tampering with Rom 3:28 is very unbiblical.
And by the way, I say that confession IS a WORK. It is a work RESULTING from faith. This is important to grasp, because a lot of faithless hypocrites try to fabricate faith by their lipservice. They will burn in hell for their filthiness in this. (They will be right alongside the antinomians in the flames.)
Do I dare bring up the obvious?? "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them..."
And re baptism: John 3:16 "I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God's kingdom without being begotten of WATER and the Spirit..."
Confession and baptism are more than works. They are divinely instituted.
Am in a huge hurry, but I thank you for your thoughtful reply.
God is not mocked, He know the intent of the heart .I have a large family INSPITE of some efforts to keep to three (ya I really was bad at it *grin*).
But I want to tell you that each of those 7 were the will of a sovereign God ,that knew the name of my children long before I was born.
I have encouraged my children not to use artificial methods because they are an affront to God and I believe a danger to the long term health of young women. IMHO. However I believe if God wills a child there will be a child.
You look to birth control and blame protestants for that .but the problem is that birth control is only a symptom of a much greater problem..man rebellion against God and the desire to be his own God.birth control is only a marker of when a society made it official and acceptable...abortion ,euthanasia are the fruits of that tree of Adam!
BTW today is the birthday of my two youngest children daughter 27 and son 25. both unexpected and unplanned .....and both a blessing to this mom's heart!
No. It was my intention to drive this debate exactly where it is now from the very start. I'm not interested at swapping proof texts. There is a Culture of Death destroying our families, our country, and everything we hold dear, including the very freedom to discuss differences of religion, battering down our doors, both yours and mine, even as we type.
That Culture of Death will not fall until its roots are attacked.
Us debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin does no good in stopping this enemy common to us both.
I'm trying to wake people out of their complacency, get them to stop wasting time on useless proof texting, and look atr the enemy at the door, its foundations, and the common tools we need to pick up to fight him.
If I can't get you to stop fighting me, I'll never get your gun sights focused on the enemy.
I'm trying to point you to the enemy.
It is not Rome.
Its coming for us both.
And it got a big head start on the apostacy on birth control.
To me, that is the soul of the protestant revolt: Man's rebellion against God, and the authority God willed for His Church. Man's rebellion against God and the desire to be his own God, in private interpretation of scripture to fit his own will, not God's.
We have three children. We desperately want more, and apparently for the time being we are unable. So nothing hurts more, when your only desire is more children, than to see others kill the child in the womb, or throw away their God given gift of fertility like so many barnyard animals, in violation of 2000 years of constant Christian teaching.
I do get passionate about this issue. I have prayed that I would not insult or get upset any more on FR threads regarding religion, and Culture of Life issues in particular. My apologies if I have failed at that on this thread. It is not my intent.
Of course we disagree on the cause of the reformation or God's will in that. I believe the article is in gross error at it's very base .I believe Luther was being obedient to God.It had great personal cost to him to obey..
But on the need to guard the life of the unborn we certainly agree and can shoulder to shoulder in that fight.As I recently observed the "right to life" movement in American Roman Catholic church and those of all faiths that have stood guard at clinics,prayed ,been arrested ,fined and humiliated have kept the conscience of America from being scarred and hardened as has happened in Europe. I still toot to the faithful as I drive by a local abortion mill....all these years later they stand in testimony to the belief that all life is sacred.
I will pray that God's plan for your family include at least 2 more 'surprises' .
[21] "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
I haven't checked yet, but doesn't Jesus in a verse 23 say "I NEVER knew you!" The people in these verse were never saved; they just thought they were and were relying on their works to get them into heaven.
Sounds just like justification by works or faith+works to me!
Matt.25
[11] Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'
Again, what does the very next verse say? Something faintly like "I don't know you." These maidens again were relying on their own light. Justification by works, again!
Luke.6
[46] "Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?
Verse [47] Whomever comes and hears.... The verses I have already quoted talk about just who comes. I can show other verses which explains just who hears.
I could continue but the clear pattern you are displaying is by reading verse from a works based justification.
Oh, what you have done is pit scripture against scripture and called God a liar because you merely quoted verse to me without explaining exactly why the verses I quoted do not mean what they plainly say. To be quite honest, you need to explain the verses I quoted directly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.