DeoOmnisGloria.com

I don't agree that the personal sin of popes doesn't effect the way they govern the church. Scriptually and historically personal sin in a leader will lead to the corruption of the organization being led. Luther in his later writtings recomended to German princes that they treat the Jew badly and this fostered the Nazi Party later on. For a more current example Bill Clinton's personal sin was detrimental to the nation and made him inaffective in curbing terrorism becasue people thought he was trying to distract from Monica-gate when he tried to bomb Osama. As a leader you are called to a higher standard.

Note: I didn't cite Catholic leadership mistakes above because I wanted to give a broader range of examples than just bashing Catholics.

God Bless

Stan,
I agree. So the question is, how is it possible that no Catholic pope has ever made a doctrinal error? I would suggest this could only be done through the grace of God (and the direct leadership of the Holy Spirit).

One quick example, one pope in particular was actually walking to the podium where he would have declared doctrinal error when he fell and died on the spot. This is an example of God protecting His Church, in my mind. I was just interested in how protestants view this.

God bless,
Jay

I just wanted to say that Jesus didn't start the Catholic church thing. Let's not forget Jesus was a JEW and He didn't come up with the whole Christianity thing. We follow Him in being Christians, but He didn't literally say " hey let's start up a church and call it the catholic church..." and NO church has functioned perfectly for a long amount of time EVER. Because we, human beings, are running them. God doesn't just make everything perfect for us. We all make mistakes. And I guess that ties in with the Popes and some of their infamous antics...such as some of the earlier ones actually having mistresses and relationships with young boys...None of the Popes have been perfect. Many have made very bad mistakes.

Sara,
First, what was Jesus doing in Matthew 16:18 then? Jesus clearly says He is starting a Church and Peter will be the foundation ("Peter" and "rock" are both cephas in Aramaic, which Jesus was speaking). I think Jesus clearly intended to start a church - however, there is no evidence He intended to have a book written.

Second, I agree that many popes have had serious problems with personal sin, but the miracle is that none of them created or denied truth while pope - a miracle only the Holy Spirit could create.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

"I agree. So the question is, how is it possible that no Catholic pope has ever made a doctrinal error?"

Question is, how many doctrinal errors have Catholic popes made?

Second, Cephas does mean rock. But lets analyze the context of Scripture and not just one verse.
1st, lets look at who Peter was. Simon means to waver, and that is exactly who Peter was. He wavered in his faith, until he truly recognized who Christ was. The moment he confessed that Christ was the Messiah and Living God, that is when his faith would no longer waver. Simon means to waver and Cephas meant rock. Again, Peter denied Christ, but when Christ was resurrected Peter and the rest of the apostles grew stronger in there faith, because they knew more so than before the true nature of Christ.
Now, if Peter was truly the first Pope as you see it, why did he always submit to Scripture? Why did Paul challenge him. Why is it that Paul and not Peter who wrote most of the New Testament? Was Paul a pope too? Peter refers not to himself as the Rock, but to Christ as the Rock. Why did Peter not speak of Mary at all?
Peter never created a new tradition. If so, what new tradition did he create? If Peter was the pope, and indeed there was only one church which did everything in the same fashion, explain the 7 DIFFERENT churches in Revelations.
What did Peter do differently from that which Christ taught him? Peter never preached about
1. Communion of saints
2. Mary ever Virgin
3. Purgatory
But more so, why are you acting as if the Roman Vatican and Papacy have not had a sketchy past? Do we have to talk about that Jay?

God Bless

SandT,
You keep pushing the same tired arguments and ignorning the clear proof we're presenting. Please take time to actually read some of the earlier stuff I responded with. Or view a few of our articles on the issues you have a problem with.

It's frustrating to take the time and energy to respond to you, when you'll just ignore our response, switch to another post, and repeat your misunderstandings.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
I will leave it at this. This is your website, you control it. You make new topics to discuss. I have read the posts on this board. Quite frankly your arguments have been logically dismantled by others who I have seen post on here.
Lastly, you are the one who keeps revisiting issues. For example, this section is basically the same as the Primacy of Peter.
Lord knows how many Sola Scriptura topics you have created.
Then when you post these new topics, you act like no one has ever posted before. That's quite funny. All I am doing is reminding you. But if you want, you can post me a link, I'll read as I always do, then I will get back to you on it.

God Bless

Well SandT, I'll leave it at this...I have yet to read one comment that was a strong, logical defense of Sola Scriptura. That being the case, Jay has every right to revisit any "Catholic" topic. If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false, then Protestantism doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Another point is the fact that I have yet to see one Protestant, who has commented on this blog, give a historical explanation for the existence of their church nor any clear justification for their church's breaking away from the Catholic Church at one point in history or another. Every single Christian church will find its ultimate origin in the Catholic Church.

Countless times we have shown that the New Testament is the heart of the Gospel message and establishes the foundation, yet it is not the conclusive and solitary source of truth. Jesus didn't even claim as much, nor did any of the Apostles.

Lastly, if you find all that we have posted to be so wanting allow me to recommend several books to you:
1) The Catechism of the Catholic Church
2) Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
3) Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church - A 2000 Year History

I challenge you to attempt to get your hands on these books and read them, especially the Catechism. In the Catechism, look up every Scripture verse referenced, every Church Father, every Council, etc. The Catechism is a powerful, "truth-full" collection of the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church, something that remains unmatched by any Protestant denomination.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

First let us both agree that is Scripture is God breathed and inspired. All Scripture. Now, I believe that God is all knowing, and being as such, He not only inspired Paul to write for his time period, but for all generations.
I mention Paul because Paul writes in Cor 4:6
"Do not go beyond what is written"
Paul also writes in 2 Tim 3:14-17
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Here God says that Scripture is from Him, and that it will help us be perfect and that we may do all GOOD WORKS. Meaning, that everything we are to apply to our lives to be perfect is in that book.

I could go on, but I will quote some of the early Catholic Church fathers.

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.)
For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliever even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. [11]

Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if any thing be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spake the Scriptures; [2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:21] He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things there fore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.

Cyril believed that Scripture is authoritative. It is clearly said here.

Irenaeus (140-202 A.D.)
We have learned from none other the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. [1]
Since, therefore, the traditions from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God. [2]

Once again, an early church father who views Scripture as authoritative.

I could give more examples if you would like.
Cor 4:6 and 2 Tim 3:14-17 are just one of many Scriptures which shows the Word of God to authoritative. At some point, this belief which was held by early church fathers or at least written down by early church fathers, changed.
The churches and tradition of the churches(Catholic or Protestant) do hold weight but, they must come measure up to what Scripture says.
Like Cyril wrote "if any thing be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it"
God said in his word that Scripture is to be used for teaching and correcting. That makes it authoritative. We the believers are the Church, but we must submit unto the Scriptures. This seems to be the case, judging by what they wrote, the belief of the early church fathers. When did it change? Was it at the Council of Trent?
Either ways, God does not change, Jesus does not change.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” Hebrews 13:8

May you all be blessed

Marc

Marc,
I totally agree with you. Excellent post.

God bless

Marc and SandT,

I completely agree that Sacred Scripture is both God inspired and authoritative. All of your quotes from Scripture and the Early Church Fathers display that as well but they in no way say that we are to hold to Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. The very idea that the sole source of truth is the Bible isn't biblical.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. - Matthew 16:18-19

These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your rememberance all that I have said to you.
- John 14:25-26

You quoted St. Cyril of Jerusalem above, and I am glad that you did. I agree with you that Cyril held Scripture to be authoritative but he also said.

The Church is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth; and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body; and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description.
And if ever you are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the House of the Lord is, - for others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens the Houses of the Lord, - nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. - Catechetical Lectures, 350 A.D.

It is possible then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.
...by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition...When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life, while the rest are thieves and robbers. That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them, while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. - Against Heresies, 180/199 A.D.

I could quote many other Early Church Fathers who held this same belief as well as the belief in the authority of the Chair of Peter, the Papacy. It shouldn't be a surprise since the Early Church Fathers were indeed Catholic...

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

I think you are missing the point. The Church is indeed the pillar of truth...at least that what it ought to be. Marc did say that tradition does hold weight, however this tradition must come into agreement with Scripture.
1 Tim 3:14-15
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these INSTRUCTIONS so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Clearly the quotes of the early church fathers simply put was the following in matters pertaining to faith; if it is not in Scripture do not worry about it.

Again lets look at what Cyril wrote:
"Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. [11] "

Clearly Cyril is saying not to believe what he says unless is it proven by what is written in Scripture. So regardless of anything that anyone can say, it must be proven in Scripture.
Joe, that simply means, if it is not in the Holy Scriptures, it is not valid.

Be blessed

Thank you Jeff. You have proven that the "Bible Alone" and "Faith Alone" are not valid because they are not even mentioned in Sacred Scripture unlike all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It amazes me how you can ignore St. Cyril's entire passage that I quoted above. I would really like to hear your take on Matthew 16:18-19, I noticed you ignored that as well as 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Still waiting wait for one other Catholic denomination, Jeff...

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

I read the quotes you posted by St. Cyril. Those quotes still do not contradict that the manner in which the church conducts itself must agree with Scripture.
The Church is to adhere to Scripture, by doing so they adhere to truth. If you want to depend so much on tradition, then why did Peter nor Paul ever preach or teach about Mary and her importance?
by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition...When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life.

Iraneus in this quote clearly points out that the Apostles left all the tradition and doctrines of faith to all of mankind.
Again
"that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. "
Joe, was it apostolic tradition to pray to Mary?
If so, why does Scripture not hint this at all?

Be blessed

The answers to your questions about Mary are simple. She was still alive at the time of Peter and Paul, so they didn't have to pray to her for her intercession because they could simply ask her to pray for them... But again, why wouldn't you want the Mother of God praying for you?

The lack of devotion to Mary in Protestantism fascinates me for she is the Mother of God. Allow that to settle in... The Early Church Fathers understood this and wrote about it extensively writing about her bodily Assumption into heaven, her immaculate conception (being conceived without sin), the uniqueness of her holiness, her being the Ever-Virgin, and her Motherhood of God. I know of no other person in the history of mankind who can lay claim to such things. How does Sacred Scripture contradict devotion to Mary? Read Luke 1.

If you want to allow this to be the stumbling stone that prevents you from becoming Catholic go ahead...but I would hate to have to explain that to Jesus Christ one day. "Sorry Jesus I couldn't join the Church You founded because I just couldn't ask your Mother to pray for me..."

Yet to say that all truth can be found clearly explained in Sacred Scripture is not true. Find an explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity in Sacred Scripture. Where does it say in Scripture that in God there are three persons that share one nature? Yet the Son, while in complete union with the Father and the Holy Spirit also has a dual nature which is both human and divine.

What I do completely agree with you on is the fact that a teaching cannot contradict Sacred Scripture and as of yet I haven't seen how any teaching of the Catholic Church does so. Whereas there are many teachings within Protestantism that are direct contradiction to Sacred Scripture. The most serious being Protestantism's view that Communion is simply a symbol and not the Body and Blood of Christ in truth. The second most serious error would be their rejection of the priesthood, which goes hand in hand with the Communion (the Eucharist) since the priest is necessary for the saying of Mass.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,
Believe me Joe, I am certain of my place after this life. I will be in Heaven, not purgatory, with my Heavenly Father.
What you just posted totally contradicts St. Cyril's message. St. Cyril clearly said that if it is not in Scripture then it is not valid. By that conclusion, it would not matter if Mary was alive. Once again, if it was that important why did not anyone of the Apostles write or teach about calling on Mary to pray for you?
If it is because she was still alive, it would be a contradiction to St. Cyril's teachings simply because it is not in Holy Scripture to ask Mary for prayer.
I read Luke 1, and it is about the virgin birth. That we already knew...but where O'where do you extrapulate adoration and besiegement of prayers from Mary from Luke 1? Was Mary blessed...yes she was. However, is she the only person that was blessed in the Bible? No. That does not give reason to ask her for intercession. No where in Luke does it teach to approach Mary for prayer...none of the Apostles ever mentioned Mary, and no where in the Bible(the Holy Scriptures as per St. Cyril) does it teach to ask Mary for intercession.
Joe, it is not in Scriptures, plain and simple.
So why busy yourself with it?

Be blessed

Jeff, Marc, and SandT,

I'm just curious if any of you thought about the original message of the post. The Roman bishop has never taught heresy in all of history. In spite of repeated heresies throughout the centuries, the Pope has always taught orthodoxy. For example, consider the Trinity, which you probably take for granted. You have the Roman pope to thank for that (actually the Holy Spirit working through the pope). Between 325 and 550 AD, there were long periods of time where almost all of the Church had fallen to Arianism. But throughout that period, the one see that stood firm was the see of Rome, constantly teaching that God was three in one. Now, you don't even question that doctrine, despite the fact that it appears nowhere in Scripture.

As another example, consider contraception. The Church has spoken out against it for 2000 years. She continues to do so, even though society has so corrupted those in the Church that probably 90% of Catholics use contraception. Yet she continues to cling to the Truth. See Authority and Dissent in the Church.

Since we all agree that organizations led by men are corrupt, constantly following man down his wayward path from the Truth, how do you explain an organization that maintains and teaches ideas and principles that are not only opposed by the world at large, but also by her own members?!!! I have yet to see anyone respond to this question without straying to another topic. Don't you find this issue intriguing?

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

The concept of the trinity is the Bible. The concept of abortion being wrong is in the Bible.
Sure the word 'trinity' or 'abortion' are not found in the Bible, but the concepts are present nonetheless. I believe it was SandT who presented to you proof of abortion being wrong according to the Bible.
But before getting of the topic, the initial point bought up by Marc is the following. The early church fathers believed Holy Scripture to be authoritative on matters of truth concerning the church.
Cyril- "Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth:"

Clearly Cyril is saying that you ought to check to the Scriptures to see if what even he(Cyril) is saying is true.
Traditions are fine and are very important, but ultimately, all traditions and teachings presented in the church must be in agreement in the word.
Again...
Cyril- ""if any thing be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it"
That clearly states that if it is no written, then do not worry or concern yourself about it.
It does not get any clearer. Cyril recognized Scripture as authoritative. So did a lot of early churh fathers.
If it is not in the SCRIPTURES, do not worry about it.

Be blessed

Jeff,
I'm guessing that you've never really read Cyril or the other early Church Fathers. Why? Because they are rabidly Catholic! They also insisted that you consume the Eucharist (the body and blood of Christ) and that you adhere completely to the Catholic Church and the Pope. It seems you are simply choosing the statements you like from their (and Cyril's) writings.

Having said that, we agree that we must adhere to Scripture. But we don't understand how it's possible to do so outside of the Church. For example, see John 6:47 ff. Only within the Catholic church can you eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus, and yet Jesus demands that all of us do so.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

We believe the following...Read 1 Cor 11:23

We do as instructed, partake of the bread and wine. However we believe that when we do so the we proclaim the Lord's death(His Sacrifice) until the day he comes. We don't believe that it actually turns literally into his flesh and blood.
Lastly, did Cyril instruct in his teachings to check the Holy Scriptures to see if what he was saying is true? Yes or No?
Be blessed

Jeff,

I'm not sure how your post actually responds to my question. I pointed out the factual difference between the Catholic Church and all other Christian denominations. The former has clung to her doctrines through 2000 years; the latter has abandoned them in droves. To mention a few, the perpetual virginity of Mary, infant baptism, ordination of women, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc. The Catholic position on each of these doctrines were at one time accepted by every Protestant denomination. Now, most have fallen away from these dogmas. In fact, I do not know of a single denomination that has held fast on every one of these. Low Protestants have universally given up on infant baptism. Hordes of evangelical and pentacostal denominations ordain women. Southern black churches, together with the Methodists, Presbyterians, ELCA Lutherans, and Episcopalians (among others) have abandoned the position that homosexual activity and abortion are intrinsic evils. I don't think there is a single Protestant denomination that opposes birth control or accepts the perpetual virginity of Mary. So again, don't you find this very curious that the purportedly "human" and "corrupt" institution of the Church has so stubbornly stuck to these dogmas for 2000 years in spite of the fact that humanity, other Christians, and even the majority of Catholics fight against them? How do you explain this tenacity? Clearly the human run Protestant churches have had no such success in maintaining their doctrinal positions. I really invite you to just take a few days to think about this.

As for SandT's supposed proof that abortion is proved sinful by the Bible, that is really a cheap shot and totally off topic. I abandoned my debate with him because he refused to behave reasonably. There is just as much color to the argument that contraception is Biblically sinful as there is regarding abortion. If you cannot see and accept that reasonable people can argue both ways on either issue (Biblically speaking), there is no point in talking further; common sense is lacking. It is discouraging to see SandT and others so vehemently attack Catholic doctrine for the inferences it makes based on Scripture (i.e. for contraception, perpetual virginity, the assumption, purgatory, prayer to saints, etc.), yet so willingly indulge in their own inferences (Trinity, abortion, polygamy) as if they have a morally superior claim to Bible interpretation over the Church that predates them by 1900 years. Nonetheless, we are here to serve.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

I don't see how bringing up SandT's discussion on abortion being is a cheap shot. Your stance was and still is that the Catholic church taught these things and not the Bible. You went even as far as saying that the Bible doesn't even mention life in the fetus. Dave, how did SandT behave unreasonably, because he disagreed with you? All he did was point to Scriptural evidence.
For your info, the Vatican has changed a lot of their teachings. For example, the Vatican I, which traditional Catholics hold on to, taught that there is no salvation outside of Catholicism. The Vatican 2 teaches that there is. Mary's bodily assumption was added in 1950. I could name a few more, but to insinuate and claim that the RCC never changes is quite unreasonable given the proof.

Be blessed

Jeff,

Your claim reflects a lack of understanding both of what I have said and what the Church has done. First, I never said that the Church has not added clarifications on its dogmas. That, by definition is how a dogma gets defined. The dogma of the Trinity was not formally established until 325 AD. Does that mean it was not true up until that time? Of course not. The same is true of the assumption/immaculate conception.

My point was rather that the Church has not abandoned its dogmas. There was never a dogma that taught against the assumption. By contrast, Protestant denominations (the officials therein) at one point taught vehemently against contraception. They have abandoned that position. The Catholic Church as an institution has never done that (on a dogmatic issue).

Your reference to Vatican I/II is misguided. The Church always taught and still teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church. Vatican II, however, clarified that being a visible member of the Church is not the only way to become part of the Church. Through abundant grace to those without knowledge or opportunity, Christ makes it possible for those not formally part of His Body to become part of His Body by "desire", as it were. This has always been true; the Church never taught that Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David were not saved simply because they were not part of the Church, which didn't even exist at that time. Similarly, there are many in the world who have never even heard of the Church, much less Christ. Vatican II acknowledges that Christ's grace and sacrifice are big enough to encompass them if the live a life of openness to God through obedience to His natural law, even though their knowledge of Him is limited. Regardless, however, all must become a literal part of the Body of Christ (the Church) before they can be saved. That is a truism regarding the economy of salvation. This issue is really not that big of a deal, and most Catholics have a general grasp of how the two council documents mesh together. Your assertion that they are contradictory is very similar to what atheists do when they find "contradictions" in the Bible. The same cannot be said about the Protestant flipflop on all of the issues I mentioned above.

Finally, you have misunderstood my point about abortion not being explicitly referenced in the Bible. It is not, and that is an acknowledged fact. Neither is a prohibition on polygamy. Neither is the Trinity. Neither is contraception, the assumption, perpetual virginity, and purgatory. Catholics and Protestants carry forward an UNDERSTANDING of Scripture that has existed for 2000 years (or more) on the former issues. Yet only Catholics carry forward the age old UNDERSTANDINGS on the latter issues. SandT claimed that Catholics were in the wrong because they were making inferences. Yet these inferences are no different than the inferences Protestants are willing to stipulate to on the former issues. Thus, SandT was not arguing from a logically solid foundation. At most, he could say that the latter inferences did not appear justifiable TO HIM. Ultimately, however, it seems clear that the future of Protestantism will continue down the same path it has followed in re Mary, contraception, infant baptism, abortion, etc. (all of which are based on inferences from Scripture); because they are not explicitly addressed in Scripture the sound and long-established doctrines will be abandoned. And finally, because the make-up of the Bible itself is not contained in Scripture, the inerrancy of the Bible will be abandoned, just as the Episcopal Church has already done.

By contrast, you still have not pointed out a single dogma of the Catholic Church that has been abandoned. Keep firing.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

Roman Catholicism allows for the Rhythm Method to be instituted. This is the same as a pill or condom, they both go towards preventing pregnancy. No matter how you slice it, it is still contraception. Do you not see that Dave?

Be blessed

Jeff,
Wrong. The Rhythm Method is what God killed Onan for in Genesis (it is contraception, but it is not allowed). The Catholic Church allows you to practice Natural Family Planning, which uses no contraception whatsoever (and I have four children to prove it ;-).

Do you not see that, Jeff?

God bless,
Jay

PS - You still haven't answered any of my questions.

Jay and Jeff,

First, Rythym Method actually is NFP (it uses calculations of the female cycle, similar to other NFP methods, but less effective). However, all NFP is safely outside the scope of contraception. Why? Because it is not a perversion of the marital act. NFP uses strategically placed ABSTINENCE (around a woman's fertile period). In other words, it takes advantage of the NATURAL rythym that God has placed in a woman's body. Moreover, it does not cheapen the marital act by interfering with the natural order instituted by God, while selfishly gratifying sexual desire. Finally, all that having been said, the Church advises prayer and the counsel of a priest even when choosing NFP.

Jeff, while I understand your confusion, it is really off topic (again). The Church has never made ANY dogmatic proclamations that NFP is wrong. Only that artificial contraception is wrong. They have stood firm by that position (as always) for 2000 years. So again, you have not pointed out any flipflops in Church teaching.

Jeff, please please please just take some time to ponder how difficult you are finding the task of coming up with a Church flipflop. For any Protestant denomination, it is as easy as pie. Why so hard for the Catholic Church, which has existed four times as long as the oldest Protestant Church? If you will stop protecting your own belief paradigms and start approaching this question objectively, you will see that there is something very curious here. I'm not being flippant; I had to do the same thing a year ago (and after four years of resisting). I remember fighting just for the sake of trying not to lose. That is a very poor mentality. Try to look at the historical fact of the Church's consistency. Even the most ardent Protestant opponents can come up with perhaps ten examples of flipflops that are even colorable. Obviously I would argue with them because we have different interpretations or in some cases different understandings of history. But aside from that, consider the number: 10 flipflops in 2000 years!!!! Even if true, that would be an astounding thought. In an institution run by corruptible humans (as you point out), the dogma managed to change only once every 200 years, and then only on a single topic???!!! It is simply extraordinary. Every denomination, religion, culture, and country changes their collective minds on what is right and wrong on a decade by decade basis. Think about this, Jeff. Don't just respond out of hand. Do some research. Find out that what I am saying is true (even from a serious Protestant perspective). Muster all the flipflops you can. You will find that for Protestant denominations there are many changes. For the Catholic Church, none (or less than 10 if you want to be partisan). Which sounds more like it is being guided by the Holy Spirit?

In Christ,
Dave

Jay,

The rhythm method is natural family planning. I am a medical student, I have done my OB/GYN rotation. The rhythm method simply put is as follows. If a woman's cycle is every 28 days, you count back 14 days from the 28th day and assume that that is her most fertile day. There is but a 24-48hr window of opportunity for the woman to get pregnant. So knowing this, the couple would abstain from the 11th day-18th day of her cycle. That is what medicine defines as the rhythm method. Pulling out after ejaculating does not ensure avoidance of conception. If you want to argue that pulling out and spilling your seed on the floor is wrong, fine, but that is not the rhythm method.
Lastly, Onan was not put to death because of spilling his seed on the ground. He was put to death for not fulfilling his duty as a Jew which was to carry out the lineage for a dead brother.
Gen 38:6-10, which says:

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "LIE WITH YOUR BROTHER'S WIFE AND FUFILL YOUR DUTY TO HER AS A BROTHER IN LAW TO PRODUCE OFFSPRING FOR YOUR BROTHER." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

Onan disobeyed the Lord. That is why he died.
Again, this is backed up by Deut 25:5-6

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

If contraception is so wrong because that is what is interpreted by these passages, then you also should follow with the whole passage. That would mean having sex with a dead brother's wife to produce an offspring. Mind you, this is just another law that Christ freed us from on Calvary.

God Bless

Marc

Marc,
First, I've always understood the rhythm method to be trying to pull out before ejaculation. Doesn't matter, it's just semantics (we both understand the points).

A question, though: What does the Bible say the punishment is for refusing to give your dead brother's wife a child? It's simply embarrassment, not death. I've written a full article on this: Contraception and the Bible. I would enjoy your thoughts on this, since it is a more complete explanation.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Onan knew that the child would not be his, so to avoid the child, he spilled his seed on the ground. It is not so much spilling seeds that was wicked, but more so the motive in his heart. The author shows the intent of Onan's heart by showing that Onan knew the child would not be his. So yes, Onan would take what belonged to his brother, wife and riches, but not fulfill the law which bought him to take his brother's wife. That is a selfish and a deceitful act. Instead, Onan could have simply said no, he does not want to marry her. Under those circumstances, he would have simply been embarrassed. Yet Onan married her, enjoyed her and his own brother's wealth. This what the Lord found to be wicked. Therefore he struck Onan down.
As for the NFP or rhythm method, it is still a form of contraception. The objective of NFP is to not get pregnant. The objective of the pill is not to get pregnant. They are both against conception...contra, conception.
Semantics when you think about it.

God bless,
Marc

Marc,
Please read the article first. The article clears up your misconceptions. Note that there's a growing trend among protestant couples to accept the truth that contraception is evil.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
I read your articles.
I agree with you that Onan had no problem taking his brothers wealth and enjoying the sex of his wife. However, what he did was deceitful. Not so much spilling the seed, but spilling the seed because he KNEW the child would not be his. He simply could have chosen not to marry her. But when he did marry her, he committed himself to carrying out the law. Instead Onan was selfish and vain. This was the wickedness that the Lord saw.
I read your article. The chapters in Levitcus you point out refer to homosexuality and beastiality(not sure if that is spelled correctly), not contraception. Galatians talks about sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery(which Onan was guilty..ALL 3 that is), but not contraception. Galatians 5 continues to talk about the fruits of the Spirit being love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. The chapters in Galatians make no reference to contraception.
Revelations discusses sexual immorality and not contraception.
I read your article, and I read the Bible, I am sorry to disagree with you but, I think the Bible is clear on what Onan did wrong. It was not spilling his seed on the ground, but the deceitful disobedient act he committed. In one shot he was vain, deceitful with intentions, and disobedient to the law. That is why Onan was struck down.

God Bless

Marc,
Now consider this: every Christian Church agreed with my interpretation and translated the passages you cite above to include contraception until the 1920's.

Let that sink in a minute. There was no disagreement. Then in the 1920's the Anglican Church (also the first to accept homosexuality in our day), started saying that contraception wasn't sinful. By the time the pill was invented, every protestant church had fallen to this deceit.

How is it possible that for 1,900 years everyone was misinterpreting the Bible and suddenly the Holy Spirit corrected the interpretation? Note also that in the early Church Fathers, which wrote during the same time the Bible was compiled, contraception and abortion were seen as very similar sins and condemned together most times. In the early Church Fathers the story of Onan is cited as the one that most clearly depicts the truth of contraception - it was interpeted as I interpreted it in that article.

So the question is: if it's okay, how come the apostles and their followers for 1,900 years always condemned it?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
I always look to the Bible for truth. Show me where Jesus taught against the idea of contraception or his disciples. I can tell you what is taught through out the BIBLE. Controlling your flesh. Meaning, you can marry because of true love, but do not get married because you want to have sex. Do you understand what I am saying. If the only reason you got married was so that you can have sex without sinning(pre-marital sex) then you are not in control of your flesh.
Understand when I say that I look to the Bible for truth. I do not proclaim to be a protestant, lutheran, calvinist, methodist or catholic. So it would not matter what 1900 years of tradition has taught, does it correlate to the Bible.
Yet again, that is a question of whose belief is right, mine or yours.
So let us look at what is taught and practiced.

Clement of Alexandria. Paedagogos 2. 10:(before 202. AD)"Marriage in
itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to
'be fruitful and multiply. ' He did not tell them, however, to act like
libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as
though born only to indulge in sexual relations... . . Why, even unreasoning
beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse
without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our
instructor."

According to Clement, that would make NFP wrong.
With NFP, you knowingly have sex with full knowledge of knowing that you are inseminating infertile ground. According to Clement, the only time to have sex is when you are trying to conceive. That would mean having sex with your loved one only 10 times if you wanted only 5 children.
Either, that is not what Clement meant, or NFP is wrong. I believe Clement to mean what is taught in the BIBLE. Marrying to have sex just for enjoying sex and never to have ANY children is not what God intended.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catecheses 4. 25 (probably 350 AD): "Let those
also be of good cheer who are married and use their marriage properly; who
enter marriage lawfully, and not out of wantonness and unbounded license;
who recognize periods of continence so that they may give themselves to
prayer [alludes to 1 Cor 7. 5]... who have embarked upon the matrimonial
estate for the procreation of children and not for the sake of indulgence."

Cyril is talking about self control. This agrees with Scripture. Controlling of one's flesh. Yet, somehow this discussion was diverted from the authority of the papcy vs. authority of scripture to contraception. Be that as it may.
You are entitled to believe your faith, and believe that which you believe is correct, and that which I believe is not correct.
I believe that the Bible teaches that Christ ONE TIME sacrifice was sufficient for my sins. I believe I have salvation because of Him, I believe that I have eternal life in Heaven guaranteed to myself because of Him and I believe that the Bible is His Word. I will lift you guys up in prayer......

God bless

Marc

Marc,
That was the craziest post yet - I think you surpassed some of your others.

First, NFP can only be used periodically to space children. It cannot be used as a replacement for birth control. In other words, you cannot determine at any point during your marriage that you will never have any more children through practicing NFP. This is a sin, so Clement was correct.

Second, I think it's interesting that you accept extra-Biblical teachings from those like Clement if they agree with what you think, but you just completely discard them if they don't. I can quote you point after point in the early Church Fathers condemning those who use any form of contraception. NFP is not contraception because you are still open to life. You can still get pregnant through NFP.

This conversation came up because Jeff brought it up as "proof" that the Catholic Church is wrong. But it is important to note that the Catholic Church is the only church I'm aware of that teachings that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, a belief you seem to agree with in your last post.

Finally, we also believe Christ's ONE TIME sacrifice was enough. We just agree with everything else Christ taught as well, such as "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you." I know it's silly of us, but we try and be obedient to God Himself . . .

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
I agree with Marc, his assessment is logically correct.
So what if a couple uses birth control to space out children? SO what if a couple uses condom to space out children?
It all boils down to one simple fact, you have sex with the intent of not getting pregnant. Rhythm method, condom or oral contraceptives...the goal of them all is to prevent pregnancy.
What is the difference between using birth control pills to space out children, versus NFP?
In both cases, the man will be spilling his seed on what he believes to be unfertile ground.
This is the same hypocrisy that is seen when it comes to divorce. Catholics will say that divorce is wrong, but that annulment is perfectly OK, because the marriage never existed.

What sense does that make? I have seen Catholic couples married in a Catholic church for 10 yrs and seen them have their marriage anulled.
It all boils down to divorce,plain and simple, just like NFP, pills or condoms boil down to preventing a pregnancy. It is this type of hypocrisy that is causing people to leave the Roman Catholic church everyday and leading them to the Truth of the Spirit.

And last time I checked Jay, Christ instructed us to break bread in REMEMBRANCE of Him.

God bless

The difference is that NFP is still open to life - you can still get pregnant using NFP, trust me. By the way, the pill sometimes results in an abortion as pill makers admit, explain to me how the pill is okay, but abortion is not (want to talk about hypocrisy).

The difference between abortion and annulment is huge. You may know someone who has gotten an annulment that shouldn't (the Pope has criticized American practices in regards to this), but annulment requires a high standard - not anyone can get an annulment. I can write an article on this, but it's an indepth subject.

In terms of Christ, it seems you are ignoring the passage quoted above. I don't think it gets much clearer - "if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you."

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
I'llgrant you the point made about the pill but what about a condom? Condoms are not 100% effective.
AS for annulment, it is still divorce no matter how you slice it. Christ gave only a couple of reasons for divorce. But I have seen couples break up for "not being happy anymore."
If someone got married in a church, they were married under God. How is it illegitimate?

God bless

I think there's another point that I haven't clearly made here: you still can't use natural family planning as contraception. What I mean by that is this: you can use NFP to space children apart if there is some pressing reason, such as a lack of money, etc. But you cannot decide you don't want more children and start practicing NFP. If there is no pressing reason, you are committing a sin by practicing NFP, just as if you were using another form of contraception.

In terms of annulments, they also are for very specific reasons. If two baptized Christians are married by a priest, it would be almost impossible to get an annulment (I'll grant you that this practice is abused in the US today, but the Pope is cracking down on it). Annulment is for serious situations. For example, if you married someone unaware that they were addicted to cocaine and they refused to get help, an annulment is an option. If you just "aren't happy anymore," you can't get an annulment. Annulments require very strong circumstances. Without these circumstances, couples cannot divorce. Period. This is how it is different than divorce.

God bless,
Jay

The difference between contraception and NFP is that contraception alters the sexual act so as to render it infertile. NFP does not alter any sexual acts, it does not influence the body's fertility, it observes it and allows a couple to make decisions accordingly.

It is like the difference between invasive surgery and non-invasive alternatives. You may or may not consider this difference significant, but this is a difference.

Post a comment