Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
“As an ex-Catholic, for other types such as barrier methods, I think the Catholic Church is wrong to oppose it and is hypocritical to push NFP but not another that doesn’t threaten life.”
So you oppose the Church’s position on this issue. Thank you.
“So, now you can change your experience of “most if not all”, since Metmom and I attest we left for theological reasons and NOT because of contraception”
That wasn’t the question, was it. My question was what percent of ex-catholics disagreed with what the Church teaches on contraception.
I’m glad you were candid enough to tell me what you believe. However, you’ve just reinforced my assessment.
“Why indeed, as i made it easy to see stats relative to that*, and if you had looked then you could have seen that evangelicals practice contraception more (71% perhaps due to having more sexual relations), contrary to historical teaching (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc., as well as women pastors).”
That’s not the question I was after. Most evangelicals are not Ex-Catholics. Nor are most Ex-Catholics evangelicals.
I’m aware of the statistics on evangelical contraceptive use. I’m not aware of any questions specifically asked to Ex-Catholics, and the percentage of whom disagree with the Church on contraception.
You can ask them the question as to why they leave, or you can ask them what they believe and see if you can find patterns. People give lots of reasons for their decisions, but in the end, you generally see uniformity of belief and opposition to Church teachings on contraception.
Moving onto the rest:
“I am aware that there are a few married priests within the Roman Catholic Church, converts from eastern Eastern Orthodox church, and that it is a church law, which can be changed. And therefore the Catholic can only argue that there is warrant for it, and not that Scripture requires it.”
Which was what I was saying. I was arguing against someone who was arguing that it was a requirement for priests to be married.
“what is presumptuous is requiring an entire class of clergy to have the gift of celibacy, however commendable and advantageous that practice is.”
I would argue that those who have difficulty with clerical celibacy are not called to the preisthood. And if you want to ask me why, I have discerned this in my own vocation. I am not called to the priesthood, because I would find clerical celibacy hard. That means I should focus on getting married and having children.
“then there would be a better case for clerical celibacy.”
Paul’s argument in Corinthians is sufficient evidence to warrant the clerical restriction. I agree that it is insufficient evidence to warrant a doctrinal decree, which is why it needs to be understood, as you have said here, that the Church does not require it out of doctrine, but as a discipline.
“In contrast, many church “fathers not taught that marital relations are sinful if not for procreation (Lactantius even says “merely for the creation of offspring”), but some indicate they saw sexual relations as impure even for that purpose within marriage, and some required the exact opposite of Paul in 1Cor. 7 for married men.”
Insofar as certain fathers taught this, they are in error, and contrary to what the Church teaches on this matter.
Augustine has issues. He’s a convert from neoplatonism, AND manicheanism. You can see this in his assertion here. The Church is very firm about this, the body was not made to be sinful, men corrupted the body at the fall. We will have purified bodies in heaven and our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and we must treat them as such.
I've asked before why NFP is acceptable and yet other forms of contraception are not and never did get an answer to that question.
Preventing conception is preventing conception.
I left the RCC LONG before I got married. It was not a factor in my decision, to say the least.
These are the same church fathers the Catholics like to quote to support their other doctrines, eh?
Way to put a guilt trip on married men and women for wanting to have sex as God designed and intended them to within the confines of marriage.
What a twisted view on sex and marriage.
Why don't you do a poll and let us know what results you get, even if people do tell you the truth.
For a church with such er.... *interesting* views on marriage, sex, and reproduction, they sure are inordinately obsessed with others personal lives, aren't they? And this isn't the first time this have been displayed.
FWIW, did I see anywhere in the NT that one's view on contraception played a role in their salvation?
The legalism, fear, and doubt that Catholics live under is astounding.
Remember that when Jesus was baptized by John he said, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."(Matthew 3:15) Baptism is an act of righteousness, but in Titus 3:5, Paul says that such acts of righteousness do not save us:
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
Of course, Baptism is a good work, but Ephesians 2:8,9 says plainly that salvation is a matter of God's grace and mercy and not of our works:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast."
This is a great sermon by Dr. John R. Rice that talks about baptism: http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/biblebaptism4.html
Oh, Ben, the Father has already TOLD us what he has decided AND what he has done about our retched condition. Have you forgotten everything that Evangelicalism taught you? It is not presuming when you admit you believe God's promises. It certainly WOULD be presumptuous had he not given us any assurance that we can know our eternal destiny. If our salvation was based on how well we merited or earned Heaven or how perfect we could make ourselves so we could be in God's presence, then no one COULD ever be sure until they faced the judge (God) and He tallied up the "tab".
But it isn't based on our merit or how good we are. If righteousness could come by being "good enough" and obeying all the rules, then why did Christ have to die? He is dead in vain, Galatians 2:20 says, if righteousness comes by the law. The Gospel means "good news" and the good news is that we are saved "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by his mercy he has saved us." (Titus 3:5) Whatever you do - and I'm not saying this to talk you out of being a Catholic - please, do not give up that blessed assurance that says we can KNOW we HAVE eternal life. Don't stop trusting God to do what he has promised to do.
Well, like I said. I’m curious.
Your reply can be seen is reasonable as regards Protestants in general, but I presumed that you were referring to my statistics on evangelicals, and as Catholics themselves are quite liberal when it comes to contraceptive use, and as surveys testify to evangelicals overall being more conservative in most things, my point was that it was unlikely that Catholics overall would convert to evangelicalism because it was more liberal.
And I do think that most Catholics who leave for a Protestant churches go to evangelical ones, and which the top stat on post 345 shows.
As for celibacy, I disagree that 1Cor 7 provides sufficient warrant for the clerical restriction, especially as it is not all the Scripture says on the matter. To mandate clerical celibacy after what Paul says in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 is a problem which required enforcing celibacy within marriage sometime after Christ, as some of the church fathers showed, but which kind of marriage is unknown in Scripture among those who could leave and cleave, which marriages is described as being.
And here again, we have two Tradition-based churches disagreeing somewhat. But that’s all for now.
“it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” First Vatican Council, Chapter 2 On revelation
Which must be interpreted, as seen
“Oh, Ben, the Father has already TOLD us what he has decided”
No he has not. I will not know until the day of judgement.
“Have you forgotten everything that Evangelicalism taught you?”
And if I fall? What then?
“It is not presuming when you admit you believe God’s promises.”
I believe in God’s promises to me, that should I profess my love for Christ and obey him, that I will be saved. Of that I am confident.
But I am unsure, not of Christ, but of myself. If I do not obey him, if I turn away from him, then I will not be saved.
“If our salvation was based on how well we merited or earned Heaven or how perfect we could make ourselves so we could be in God’s presence, then no one COULD ever be sure until they faced the judge (God) and He tallied up the “tab”.”
On the contrary, everyone would know. They would fail. That is what Christ teaches us. This is why we cannot save ourselves, because we are sinful creatures that are unworthy of salvation.
Can I look in my heart and confess that I have always loved him as I should? No, I cannot. Is my love for him sufficient? I don’t know, but it is Christ who decides not me.
My job is to keep turning towards him and away from sin. Each day, until that day when I am called before him. Only then will I know my fate.
“Whatever you do - and I’m not saying this to talk you out of being a Catholic - please, do not give up that blessed assurance that says we can KNOW we HAVE eternal life. Don’t stop trusting God to do what he has promised to do.”
It’s not God that I doubt. It’s me. Please understand this. And no, if asked, I do not know what my fate will be. That’s up to God to decide through his grace to forgive me for my sins.
Enforcement of clerical celibacy is a reasonable disagreement. It’s an argument we have within ourselves. It’s something that may change, without touching the doctrine of the church.
If a church has married men as pastors, I have no qualms with that whatsoever. Christ permits us that freedom, but that is a two way street.
“and as Catholics themselves are quite liberal when it comes to contraceptive use, and as surveys testify to evangelicals overall being more conservative in most things, my point was that it was unlikely that Catholics overall would convert to evangelicalism because it was more liberal.”
It’s not so much that it is liberal, it is slack where they wish it to be slack. Again, I was an evangelical. There was nothing barring use of contraception except as an abortifacient. Someone going the other way would likely see that as attractive, which makes sense to me.
The same is true of the Catholic church, btw. In folks going the other way, you’ll see desire for a formalized liturgy, but a big one is the eucharist. Belief in the real presence, was for me, the stepping stone over. I became convinced that the Lord was truly present in the bread and wine.
That is something the Catholic church does well, in their focus on the eucharist and on Christ in the liturgy. The rest took time. It took me about two years before I was ready to join the Catholic church. I didn’t join until I was ready to say that I understood and believed in everything that the Church teaches.
The other for me, was the whole structure. A big concern for me was what was happening to the Episcopalians, in blessing homosexuality. I didn’t believe, as my friends did, that the solution was to pack up and leave and form another church. I didn’t want that.
I believed, then as now, that if I was to join a church, that I would be a part of that Church for the rest of my life. So there is that search for assurance.
Your "assessment" would be incorrect - STILL. For the record, I left the Catholic Church while I was still a virgin, so I highly doubt you can pin the "disagree with the church on contraception" excuse as my motive. If you expect people to remain "candid" with you, you will have to take them at their word when reasons are shared.
What did you think when you read the previous survey results posted by Daniel1212 about the percentage of Catholics that disagree about contraception YET stay in the church?
“If you expect people to remain “candid” with you, you will have to take them at their word when reasons are shared.”
Motivations or not, facts are still facts. You disagree with what the Catholic church teaches on contraception. You also left the church. If you flipped a coin, and kept getting heads, you would think that this warranted more investigation.
This is what I’m seeing. If I were to ask Ex-Catholics, I would be very, very surprised to see any of them saying that they believed that the Church was right on conception. Why? I don’t know. I have my suspicions.
It’s not something you can draw out one piece at a time. There’s some fundamental difference here that’s associated with the other fundamental differences.
“What did you think when you read the previous survey results posted by Daniel1212 about the percentage of Catholics that disagree about contraception YET stay in the church?”
You familiar with evaporation? Same principle. The ones who stay are the ones who don’t have the same energy as the ones who leave. But it’s the same underlying problem with both of them. That’s what I want to get at, because once that is understood, then you tackle both problems at once.
It doesn’t have so much to do with contraception per se, but it has to do with the understanding of the body.
“Well, it certainly is easy to see from where some Catholics get their screwy (pun) ideas about sex. No wonder the very idea that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus is so repugnant to them. Guys like Jerome, Augustine and Cyprian were instrumental in the development of the doctrine of Mary’s ever-virgin status. Now we see how they got to there.”
Except for the fact that this is not what the Church teaches. The church explicitly teaches just the opposite. Augustine and Cyprian are wrong about the value of the body. The body is not in and of itself sinful.
“For a church with such er.... *interesting* views on marriage, sex, and reproduction, they sure are inordinately obsessed with others personal lives, aren’t they? And this isn’t the first time this have been displayed.
FWIW, did I see anywhere in the NT that one’s view on contraception played a role in their salvation?”
I’m going to interpret this as a yes to my question. Thanks metmom. Another confirmation.
See, this is what I think Protestants don’t get. You are not your own. You do not have the right to do with your body as you wish, because your body does not belong to you. It belongs to Christ.
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.