OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 06:35:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Contraception & Natural Law  (Read 40368 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #270 on: December 09, 2010, 01:54:25 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #271 on: December 09, 2010, 01:59:12 PM »


What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!

Exactly. If EOs continue down their path of departing from moral truth, I fear that their Apostolic Succession will cease to be.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #272 on: December 09, 2010, 01:59:45 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #273 on: December 09, 2010, 02:05:01 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.
You mean this matter
Quote
Clement of Alexandria



"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" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Quote
Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #274 on: December 09, 2010, 02:06:46 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.
You mean this matter
Quote
Clement of Alexandria



"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" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Quote
Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.
What is your point? To waste semen, is not to ejaculate it into a woman at wrong time of the month. Semen exists to be ejaculated into a woman. That is its nature. Vainly ejaculating would be to masterbate or use a condom, or to have sexual relations without ejaculating in the woman. Of course, I am sure you know this. The problem is that you are so attached your selfish expressions of sexuality.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 02:08:59 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #275 on: December 09, 2010, 02:18:52 PM »

Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
What two functions? EM keeps on telling us that sex is not necessary (something that natural law contradicts), but it remains a fact that only one function is necessry, i.e. you will die if you do not engage in it.

That'st he problem when you base your moral reasoning on physiology. If you are looking for metaphysics, you have to come to revelation.  Action theory works only in the ravings of Aquinas and company. Take the gift of speech: the speech organs are ALL misnamed, as none of them are disigned for speech. And yet man speaks the Word none the less.

I wonder if Mr. Conte knew that female organism aids the semen to be drawn in towards the egg, if it would upset his well laid out moral arguments, or would he reckon that it's primary function is to pleasure the woman, and reject it accordingly.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 02:19:48 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #276 on: December 09, 2010, 02:39:53 PM »

Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
What two functions? EM keeps on telling us that sex is not necessary (something that natural law contradicts), but it remains a fact that only one function is necessry, i.e. you will die if you do not engage in it.

That'st he problem when you base your moral reasoning on physiology. If you are looking for metaphysics, you have to come to revelation.  Action theory works only in the ravings of Aquinas and company. Take the gift of speech: the speech organs are ALL misnamed, as none of them are disigned for speech. And yet man speaks the Word none the less.

I wonder if Mr. Conte knew that female organism aids the semen to be drawn in towards the egg, if it would upset his well laid out moral arguments, or would he reckon that it's primary function is to pleasure the woman, and reject it accordingly.
What alot of senseless drivel. First, the two functions are clear. Exrcretion of waste and sexuality. How can you possibly miss this? I don't think you are stupid, so you must be dishonest.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #277 on: December 09, 2010, 02:56:47 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.
You mean this matter
Quote
Clement of Alexandria



"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" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Quote
Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.
What is your point? To waste semen, is not to ejaculate it into a woman at wrong time of the month.

SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.
Quote
Clement of Alexandria
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius
"[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" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"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" (ibid., 6:23:18).
I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says
Quote
The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well
Quote
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius#Copernican_criticism
So too marriage for the married.

Quote
Augustine

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

Jerome

"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?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Quote
Semen exists to be ejaculated into a woman.

Then why the opposition of the Vatican to artificial insemenation?

Quote
That is its nature.

Then it wouldn't come out in nocturnal emissions, nor be broken down and absorbed if not ejaculate (into a woman or otherwise).

Quote
Vainly ejaculating would be to masterbate or use a condom,
or a infertile/barren woman. In fact, since 16 million -1 are expended in a conception, even there most are vainly ejaculated, no matter how much they contribute to the success of the one.

Quote
or to have sexual relations without ejaculating in the woman. Of course, I am sure you know this.


I know that there is more to a relationship than treating the man like a sperm donor with an insemenination catheter.

Quote
]The problem is that you are so attached your selfish expressions of sexuality.
Rather presumptious of you to assUme my private life.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #278 on: December 09, 2010, 02:58:54 PM »

Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
What two functions? EM keeps on telling us that sex is not necessary (something that natural law contradicts), but it remains a fact that only one function is necessry, i.e. you will die if you do not engage in it.

That'st he problem when you base your moral reasoning on physiology. If you are looking for metaphysics, you have to come to revelation.  Action theory works only in the ravings of Aquinas and company. Take the gift of speech: the speech organs are ALL misnamed, as none of them are disigned for speech. And yet man speaks the Word none the less.

I wonder if Mr. Conte knew that female organism aids the semen to be drawn in towards the egg, if it would upset his well laid out moral arguments, or would he reckon that it's primary function is to pleasure the woman, and reject it accordingly.
What alot of senseless drivel. First, the two functions are clear. Exrcretion of waste and sexuality.
In that order, I'm sure.
Quote
How can you possibly miss this? I don't think you are stupid, so you must be dishonest.
Just an honest application of your action theory and naturla law, with the implications you have missed, or your "moral theologians" have dishonestly sidelined.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #279 on: December 09, 2010, 02:59:37 PM »

^ Izzy, you just brought up so many childish pedestrian points that I am going to have to respond this evening when I am at home. Geesh. I never though I would see so many stupids points coming from you at one time.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #280 on: December 09, 2010, 03:00:31 PM »

Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
What two functions? EM keeps on telling us that sex is not necessary (something that natural law contradicts), but it remains a fact that only one function is necessry, i.e. you will die if you do not engage in it.

That'st he problem when you base your moral reasoning on physiology. If you are looking for metaphysics, you have to come to revelation.  Action theory works only in the ravings of Aquinas and company. Take the gift of speech: the speech organs are ALL misnamed, as none of them are disigned for speech. And yet man speaks the Word none the less.

I wonder if Mr. Conte knew that female organism aids the semen to be drawn in towards the egg, if it would upset his well laid out moral arguments, or would he reckon that it's primary function is to pleasure the woman, and reject it accordingly.
What alot of senseless drivel. First, the two functions are clear. Exrcretion of waste and sexuality.
In that order, I'm sure.
Quote
How can you possibly miss this? I don't think you are stupid, so you must be dishonest.
Just an honest application of your action theory and naturla law, with the implications you have missed, or your "moral theologians" have dishonestly sidelined.
Not an honesty application at all. It's childish drivel. The same kinds of nonsensical arguements I expect to see from my teenage students, not from a grown man.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #281 on: December 09, 2010, 03:52:49 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!

Having a bit of fun with your "Natural Law."  laugh laugh  No need for you to fixate on us.  But I do notice that for a celibate woman who wants to be a consecrated hermitess you do have much to say on these issues.  To my mind that does not gel.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #282 on: December 09, 2010, 03:57:24 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Reminder to self:  do not seek any counsel from Mary.  Two small references to bulls and she diagnoses it as a "fixation."   Smiley
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #283 on: December 09, 2010, 04:01:51 PM »

Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
You're the ones basing your "morality" on what happens in nature. Not us. And neither of us are as fixated as the likes of your friend Mr. Conte

I confess that I did not read him.  After dipping my toe in the water and reading a paragraph or two, I felt quite dirty and closed the website.  I hope I won't be accused of refusing to comprehend Roman Catholic morals.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #284 on: December 09, 2010, 04:31:31 PM »



That had to hurt.








Come on. It's relevant!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #285 on: December 09, 2010, 04:49:26 PM »

And the bull was thinking "hey, I'm the underdog, but I have a chance to win this thing!"
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #286 on: February 21, 2011, 06:46:06 PM »

^ Izzy, you just brought up so many childish pedestrian points that I am going to have to respond this evening when I am at home. Geesh. I never though I would see so many stupids points coming from you at one time.
We're still waiting....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #287 on: February 21, 2011, 07:52:30 PM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "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."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Quite a Catch-22 we are in if St. Clement is right, knowing what we now know about the life of spermazoa and a woman's cycle.

If you ejaculate in any but two days out of the month, the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

The best practice for fertility, however, is ejaculating every two days.  In fact, after 10 days of no ejaculation, the chance of conception is less than 3%, so again the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

This is because semen has a shelf life: use it or lose it.  Its life cycle lasts only a month, which includes necrosis if left in storage, being broken down and reabsorbed into the body. So even if it not vainly ejaculated, it will be wasted.

The process of reabsorbtion is irritating to the prostate, which is why it can lead to noctural emissions, in which case the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

St. Clement and his fellow Stoics seem to have labored under the misapprehension that semen is made to order. Not so.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #288 on: February 22, 2011, 10:14:14 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "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."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Quite a Catch-22 we are in if St. Clement is right, knowing what we now know about the life of spermazoa and a woman's cycle.

If you ejaculate in any but two days out of the month, the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

The best practice for fertility, however, is ejaculating every two days.  In fact, after 10 days of no ejaculation, the chance of conception is less than 3%, so again the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

This is because semen has a shelf life: use it or lose it.  Its life cycle lasts only a month, which includes necrosis if left in storage, being broken down and reabsorbed into the body. So even if it not vainly ejaculated, it will be wasted.

The process of reabsorbtion is irritating to the prostate, which is why it can lead to noctural emissions, in which case the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

St. Clement and his fellow Stoics seem to have labored under the misapprehension that semen is made to order. Not so.
The first of the two quotes do not suggest that sex must be had only on certain days. The natural end of sperm is to be ejactulated into a woman, and to create new life on particular days, and not to create life on other particular days. To frustrate this end is contrary to natural law. Now, the final quote, I actually think is in line with Catholic teaching because I don't think that the Church fathers had detailed knowledge of the days in which a woman was fertile. Therefore, I don't think that they knew it was impossible to concieve on certain days. Therefore, for them to say that one must have sex in order to procreate must have meant that one must not fruste that possiblity on any given day, given the premise that conception is always possible. If the Church Fathers had had the knowledge that we have, of the near impossibility of contraception naturaly built into the woman's cycle, I believe that they would have worded their statements on the matter differently, just as St. Thomas Aquinas would have believed that ensoulment happened at conception, if he knew what we now know about biology.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #289 on: February 22, 2011, 10:16:14 AM »

Just an honest application of your action theory and naturla law, with the implications you have missed, or your "moral theologians" have dishonestly sidelined.
More stupid comments from Izzy. Natural Law is not based on what a person does or is capable of. Natural law is not the "law of the Jungle". Natural law is about a reasoned conclusion concerning a person's factulties' natural end.
Of course because you are an existentialist (i.e. a heretic who actually denies the incarnation), you can't see natural ends.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 10:28:53 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #290 on: February 23, 2011, 06:43:11 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "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."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Quite a Catch-22 we are in if St. Clement is right, knowing what we now know about the life of spermazoa and a woman's cycle.

If you ejaculate in any but two days out of the month, the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

The best practice for fertility, however, is ejaculating every two days.  In fact, after 10 days of no ejaculation, the chance of conception is less than 3%, so again the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

This is because semen has a shelf life: use it or lose it.  Its life cycle lasts only a month, which includes necrosis if left in storage, being broken down and reabsorbed into the body. So even if it not vainly ejaculated, it will be wasted.

The process of reabsorbtion is irritating to the prostate, which is why it can lead to noctural emissions, in which case the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

St. Clement and his fellow Stoics seem to have labored under the misapprehension that semen is made to order. Not so.
The first of the two quotes do not suggest that sex must be had only on certain days.

They demand it by their (and your) action theory of natural law.  If the "natural end of sperm" is restricted to uniting with an ovum, then it can be ejaculated only on certain days to achieve that. Even then, it falls short.

The natural end of sperm is to be ejactulated into a woman,

you mean into a woman's vagina. Btw, do you claim for its natural end "to be ejaculated into his wife's vagina," or do you say natural law just says "a woman"?

and to create new life on particular days, and not to create life on other particular days.

The Fathers upon which you (I can't say HV, as it doesn't cite any Fathers) depend do not make your distinction. St. Clement, for instance, is quite explicit on that. So for Patristics, you are going to have to defend making a distinction your authorities do not.

As a matter of fact, even for you action theory of natural law, you have to defend your distinction that nature does not.

To frustrate this end is contrary to natural law.


According to nature, the vast majority of sperm do not reach this end. So much for natural law.

Now, the final quote, I actually think is in line with Catholic teaching because I don't think that the Church fathers had detailed knowledge of the days in which a woman was fertile.

Do all of them? Not sure if that is demonstrated. Did some of them? Yes, we definitely know that because St. Augustine explicitely talks about it and blames and accident in calculating for him impregnating his concubine with his son.  Did they know accurately? Not relevant: the relevance lies in connecting their actions to their beliefs/knowledge, not in how scientically accurate they were.

Therefore, I don't think that they knew it was impossible to concieve on certain days.

That we know that they definitely knew. Estris plays a role in the bestiaries of the Fathers, those which you are depending on making the rather odd demand, contrary to the customary admonitions, that people act like animals, those "unreasoning beasts [who] know enough not to mate at certain times." IOW, the infertile periods.

Therefore, for them to say that one must have sex in order to procreate must have meant that one must not fruste that possiblity on any given day, given the premise that conception is always possible.

LOL. A la HV. Alas, no.  It is quite clear, as they are explicit, that they knew those "frustrating" days.


If the Church Fathers had had the knowledge that we have, of the near impossibility of contraception naturaly built into the woman's cycle, I believe that they would have worded their statements on the matter differently, just as St. Thomas Aquinas would have believed that ensoulment happened at conception, if he knew what we now know about biology.
It would comfot you to think so, and the argument can be made. Whether the argument on Aquinas would persuade is another matter. on the matter at hand, however, you are pretty much out of luck. No only can the argument be made both to say that they would have specified ONLY the fertile days, or that they would have been more open to contraception, but it reveals the problem of depending on "natural law."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #291 on: February 23, 2011, 09:09:22 AM »

This thread is pretty sad.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #292 on: February 23, 2011, 10:34:09 AM »

I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "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."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Quite a Catch-22 we are in if St. Clement is right, knowing what we now know about the life of spermazoa and a woman's cycle.

If you ejaculate in any but two days out of the month, the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

The best practice for fertility, however, is ejaculating every two days.  In fact, after 10 days of no ejaculation, the chance of conception is less than 3%, so again the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

This is because semen has a shelf life: use it or lose it.  Its life cycle lasts only a month, which includes necrosis if left in storage, being broken down and reabsorbed into the body. So even if it not vainly ejaculated, it will be wasted.

The process of reabsorbtion is irritating to the prostate, which is why it can lead to noctural emissions, in which case the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

St. Clement and his fellow Stoics seem to have labored under the misapprehension that semen is made to order. Not so.
The first of the two quotes do not suggest that sex must be had only on certain days.

They demand it by their (and your) action theory of natural law.  If the "natural end of sperm" is restricted to uniting with an ovum, then it can be ejaculated only on certain days to achieve that. Even then, it falls short.

The natural end of sperm is to be ejactulated into a woman,

you mean into a woman's vagina. Btw, do you claim for its natural end "to be ejaculated into his wife's vagina," or do you say natural law just says "a woman"?

and to create new life on particular days, and not to create life on other particular days.

The Fathers upon which you (I can't say HV, as it doesn't cite any Fathers) depend do not make your distinction. St. Clement, for instance, is quite explicit on that. So for Patristics, you are going to have to defend making a distinction your authorities do not.

As a matter of fact, even for you action theory of natural law, you have to defend your distinction that nature does not.

To frustrate this end is contrary to natural law.


According to nature, the vast majority of sperm do not reach this end. So much for natural law.

Now, the final quote, I actually think is in line with Catholic teaching because I don't think that the Church fathers had detailed knowledge of the days in which a woman was fertile.

Do all of them? Not sure if that is demonstrated. Did some of them? Yes, we definitely know that because St. Augustine explicitely talks about it and blames and accident in calculating for him impregnating his concubine with his son.  Did they know accurately? Not relevant: the relevance lies in connecting their actions to their beliefs/knowledge, not in how scientically accurate they were.

Therefore, I don't think that they knew it was impossible to concieve on certain days.

That we know that they definitely knew. Estris plays a role in the bestiaries of the Fathers, those which you are depending on making the rather odd demand, contrary to the customary admonitions, that people act like animals, those "unreasoning beasts [who] know enough not to mate at certain times." IOW, the infertile periods.

Therefore, for them to say that one must have sex in order to procreate must have meant that one must not fruste that possiblity on any given day, given the premise that conception is always possible.

LOL. A la HV. Alas, no.  It is quite clear, as they are explicit, that they knew those "frustrating" days.


If the Church Fathers had had the knowledge that we have, of the near impossibility of contraception naturaly built into the woman's cycle, I believe that they would have worded their statements on the matter differently, just as St. Thomas Aquinas would have believed that ensoulment happened at conception, if he knew what we now know about biology.
It would comfot you to think so, and the argument can be made. Whether the argument on Aquinas would persuade is another matter. on the matter at hand, however, you are pretty much out of luck. No only can the argument be made both to say that they would have specified ONLY the fertile days, or that they would have been more open to contraception, but it reveals the problem of depending on "natural law."
What's sad Isa, is that your Church claims to be unchanging, and to follow the teachings of the Fathers, yet ya'll are in direct opposition to the Fathers.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #293 on: February 23, 2011, 12:18:42 PM »

What's sad Isa, is that your Church claims to be unchanging, and to follow the teachings of the Fathers, yet ya'll are in direct opposition to the Fathers.
LOL. Again with the assertions not backed up.

Ah, the Vatican's sanctimony born in the Corban twins-"natural family planning" and "annullments." Sure to mentioned in the first breath of an apologist for the Vatican on how it has "kept the Fathers."

If you want to abandon even what is salvageable in Humanae Vitae and adopt St. Clement's (who, not suprising, was not married) views brought in by him from Stoicism, St. Jerome's rather gnostic views ("even the blood of martyrdom does not wash away the stain of marriage"), and share St. Augustine's personal problems with issues of sexuality (and remember, he was not a virgin but neither did he ever marry), etc., you are welcome to them.

The Orthodox Church in her prayers blessing the married couple placed itself in the time of the Fathers against gnosticism and the reduction of the married to second (if even) class status to serve no purpose beyond breeding for virgins (St. Jerome's self-proclaimed sole praise for marriage), and had continued to follow the Fathers in dealing with such matters in her pastors dealing with real people, and not monks engaged in navel gazing.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #294 on: March 09, 2011, 02:16:48 AM »

Just an honest application of your action theory and naturla law, with the implications you have missed, or your "moral theologians" have dishonestly sidelined.
More stupid comments from Izzy. Natural Law is not based on what a person does or is capable of. Natural law is not the "law of the Jungle". Natural law is about a reasoned conclusion concerning a person's factulties' natural end.
Of course because you are an existentialist (i.e. a heretic who actually denies the incarnation), you can't see natural ends.
I just noticed that we don't have the official (or semi-official, or infallible, or authoritiative-we can't get a straight answer on what exactly is the status of the CCC in the hierarchy of certitude) definition of natural law:
Quote
I. The Natural Moral Law

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good.

The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. (Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597)

1955 The "divine and natural" law (GS 89 # 1) shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. the natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. (St. Augustine, De Trin. 14, 15, 21: PL 42,1052)

The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. I)

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely. (Cicero, Rep. III, 22, 33)
!
Quoting the Stoic as its authority, the Vatican reveals the origin of its "Natural Law."
Quote
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;(Cf. GS 10) it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. the rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. (St. Augustine, Conf. 2, 4, 9: PL 32, 678)

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error." (Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005) The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists. Oh well. I would like to know how he, the CCC and the rest of the Vatican would distinguish this clinging to Natural Law from the foolishness of the Judaizers of the Galatians.
.

To give another definition:
Quote
the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #295 on: March 09, 2011, 02:14:20 PM »

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #296 on: March 09, 2011, 03:13:49 PM »

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 03:14:34 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #297 on: March 09, 2011, 03:15:11 PM »

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #298 on: March 09, 2011, 03:19:35 PM »

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #299 on: March 09, 2011, 03:32:18 PM »

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
And your denial of the Incarnation is the matter at hand.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #300 on: March 09, 2011, 03:33:33 PM »

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
And your denial of the Incarnation is the matter at hand.
And the proof of your false witness and slander?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #301 on: March 09, 2011, 03:46:26 PM »

Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 03:46:54 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #302 on: March 09, 2011, 03:51:16 PM »

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
And your denial of the Incarnation is the matter at hand.
And the proof of your false witness and slander?
It's not slander. You said you are an existentialist. Existentialism does not allow for the possibility of an Incarnation, since existentialism denies the existence of human nature.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #303 on: March 09, 2011, 03:58:18 PM »

Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #304 on: March 09, 2011, 04:00:29 PM »

Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Izzy is once again being a silly-willy, by referring to the Catholic Church as the "Vatican". You make me laugh.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #305 on: March 09, 2011, 04:04:32 PM »

Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.

The Catholic [my Church's] teaching on natural law can be offered in a two word summation:

Divine Providence.

Since you have no grasp of that reality, I can only assume that you have not even googled the topic and are speaking purely extemporaneously on the subject. 

At that rate it is really not worth my time or Papists engaging the topic with you, and I will concur with your fellow Orthodox here who said something to the effect that it was a silly sort of non-discussion.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #306 on: March 09, 2011, 04:07:58 PM »

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
And your denial of the Incarnation is the matter at hand.
And the proof of your false witness and slander?
It's not slander. You said you are an existentialist. Existentialism does not allow for the possibility of an Incarnation, since existentialism denies the existence of human nature.
So you believe Christ brought His Body down from heaven, or the Logos took a body to inhabit, or the Son of God is not begotten before the ages.  Interesting.

Existence precedes essence.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #307 on: March 09, 2011, 04:09:46 PM »

Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Izzy is once again being a silly-willy, by referring to the Catholic Church as the "Vatican". You make me laugh.  Grin
That's good, because we're laughing at you, not with you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #308 on: March 09, 2011, 04:14:13 PM »

Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Izzy is once again being a silly-willy, by referring to the Catholic Church as the "Vatican". You make me laugh.  Grin
That's good, because we're laughing at you, not with you.
Which must be embarrassing for you Izzy, since you are wrong.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #309 on: March 09, 2011, 04:20:27 PM »

Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.

The Catholic [my Church's] teaching on natural law can be offered in a two word summation:

Divine Providence.

Another two words would be more appropriate summation.

Since you have no grasp of that reality,

enough of a graspt to know not to cite a pagan as an authority for what purports to be the catechism of the Christian Church, a tighter grip of the Truth then than your magisterium managed.

I can only assume that you have not even googled the topic and are speaking purely extemporaneously on the subject.


You assUme wrong. Like I said, you can't read anything that the Vatican puts out without coming across Natural Law. But if you don't have God's Revelation, I guess they have to make do with Natural Law and apparitions.

At that rate it is really not worth my time or Papists engaging the topic with you, and I will concur with your fellow Orthodox here who said something to the effect that it was a silly sort of non-discussion.
There is nothing to discuss: the Vatican is in error in its teaching on both contraception and Natural Law, and especially on its combination of the two.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #310 on: March 09, 2011, 04:22:04 PM »

Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Izzy is once again being a silly-willy, by referring to the Catholic Church as the "Vatican". You make me laugh.  Grin
That's good, because we're laughing at you, not with you.
Which must be embarrassing for you Izzy, since you are wrong.
LOL.  Those who confess the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church are immune to your pontification papist.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #311 on: March 09, 2011, 04:45:00 PM »

The mystical theology of the Eastern Church By Vladimir Lossky
http://books.google.com/books?id=dxqvWwPSCSwC&pg=PA92&dq=Lossky+being+and+nothingness&cd=2#v=onepage&q=existentialism&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #312 on: March 09, 2011, 05:29:20 PM »

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER THREE
GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

    Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

    The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

1955 The "divine and natural" law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

    Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

    For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

    Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 05:37:47 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #313 on: March 09, 2011, 06:26:13 PM »

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER THREE
GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

    Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

Was there some reason to repost what I've just posted?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.msg541481.html#msg541481

It might be helpful to hear contrast what your CCC says about the Old Law:
Quote
II. The Old Law

1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of Christ. the Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason. These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of salvation.

1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. the precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. the Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.13

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, "types," and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's charity has been poured into our hearts."18





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 57, 1: PL 36, 673.


14 Cf. ⇒ Rom 7:12, ⇒ 14, ⇒ 16.


15 Cf. ⇒ Gal 3:24.


16 Cf. ⇒ Rom 7.


17 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4, 15, 1: PG 7/1, 1012.


18 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 107, 1 ad 2; cf. ⇒ Rom 5:5.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #314 on: March 09, 2011, 06:58:44 PM »

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

IN BRIEF

1975 According to Scripture the Law is a fatherly instruction by God which prescribes for man the ways that lead to the promised beatitude, and proscribes the ways of evil.

1976 "Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 90, 4).

1977 Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God.

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

1980 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.

1981 The Law of Moses contains many truths naturally accessible to reason. God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.

1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord's Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.

1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.

1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.

1986 Besides its precepts the New Law includes the evangelical counsels. "The Church's holiness is fostered in a special way by the manifold counsels which the Lord proposes to his disciples in the Gospel" (LG 42 § 2).

Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.274 seconds with 73 queries.