OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 09:20:29 PM *
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 13 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Catholic Route to Birth Control  (Read 27510 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #315 on: November 10, 2010, 01:23:10 PM »

I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Quote
Interpreting the Moral Law
This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.

That seems to be the problem with much of the Vatican's moral (and even theological) teaching: in Orthodoxy, the principles of the moral teaching on marriage are based on divine Revelation, and illuminated and enriched by natural law. This confusion is continued in HV:
Quote
No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (See Pius IX, encyc. letter Oui pluribus: Pii IX P.M. Acta, 1, pp. 9-10; St. Pius X encyc. letter Singulari quadam: AAS 4 (1912), 658; Pius XI, encyc.letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 579-581; Pius XII, address Magnificate Dominum to the episcopate of the Catholic World: AAS 46 (1954), 671-672; John XXIII, encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 457) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (See Mt 28. 18-19) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (See Mt 7. 21)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Leo XIII, encyc.letter Arcanum: Acta Leonis XIII, 2 (1880), 26-29; Pius XI, encyc.letter Divini illius Magistri: AAS 22 (1930), 58-61; encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 545-546; Pius XII, Address to Italian Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi di Pio XII, VI, 191-192; to Italian Association of Catholic Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 835-854; to the association known as the Family Campaign, and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; to 7th congress of International Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 446-447 [TPS VII, 330-331]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos. 47-52: AAS 58 (1966), 1067-1074 [TPS XI, 289-295]; Code of Canon Law, canons 1067, 1068 §1, canon 1076, §§1-2.)

None of those "predecessors" predate Vatican I.

Mt. 7:21 "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Natural law, might also declare the will of God, but He has spoken more clearly in revelation: why would one want to read tea leaves when you can read a straight forward letter? Orthodoxy looks to the telos, the End, for moral theology and order nature towards that goal, not the other way around.

The only statement predating Vatican I HV cites here comes from the catechism of Trent
Quote
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THIS SACRAMENT
As it is the duty of the pastor to seek the holiness and perfection of the faithful, his earnest desires must be in full accordance with those expressed by the Apostle when writing to the Corinthians: I would that all men were even as myself,1 that is, that all should embrace the virtue of continence. No greater happiness can befall the faithful in this life than to have their souls distracted by no worldly cares, the unruly desires of the flesh tranquilized and restrained, and the mind fixed on the practice of piety and the contemplation of heavenly things.
But as, according to the same Apostle, every one has his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that;2 and as marriage is gifted with great and divine blessings, so much so as truly and properly to hold a place among the other Sacraments of the Catholic Church, and as its celebration was honored by the presence of our Lord Himself,3 it is clear that this subject should be explained, particularly since we find that St. Paul and the Prince of the Apostles have in many places minutely described to us not only the dignity but also the duties of the married state. Filled with the Spirit of God (these Apostles) well understood the numerous and important advantages which must flow to Christian society from a knowledge, and an inviolable observance by the faithful of the sanctity of marriage; while they saw that from ignorance or disregard of (its holiness), many and serious calamities and losses must be brought upon the Church.

Nature and Meaning of Marriage
The nature and meaning of marriage are, therefore, to be first explained. Vice not infrequently assumes the semblance of virtue, and hence care must be taken that the faithful be not deceived by a false appearance of marriage, and thus stain their souls with turpitude and wicked lusts. To explain this subject, let us begin with the meaning of the word itself.

NAMES OF THIS SACRAMENT
The word matrimony is derived from the fact that the principal object which a female should propose to herself in marriage is to become a mother; or from the fact that to a mother it belongs to conceive, bring forth and train her offspring.*
It is also called wedlock (conjugium)* from joining together, because a lawful wife is united to her husband, as it were, by a common yoke.
It is called nuptials,* because, as St. Ambrose observes, the bride veiled her face through modesty - a custom which would also seem to imply that she was to be subject and obedient to her husband.4

DEFINITION OF MATRIMONY
Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.
In order that the different parts of this definition may be better understood, it should be taught that, although a perfect marriage has all the following conditions, - namely, internal consent, external compact expressed by words, the obligation and tie which arise from the contract, and the marriage debt by which it is consummated; yet the obligation and tie expressed by the word union alone have the force and nature of marriage.
The special character of this union is marked by the word conjugal. This word is added because other contracts, by which men and women bind themselves to help each other in consideration of money received or other reason, differ essentially from matrimony.
Next follow the words between qualified persons; for person excluded by law cannot contract marriage, and if they do their marriage is invalid. Persons, for instance, within the fourth degree of kindred, a boy before his fourteenth year, and a female before her twelfth, the ages established by law,* cannot contract marriage.
The words, which obliges them to live together throughout life, express the indissolubility of the tie which binds husband and wife.*

ESSENCE AND CAUSE OF MARRIAGE
Hence it is evident that marriage consists in the tie spoken of above. Some eminent theologians, it is true, say that it consists in the consent, as when they define it: The consent of the man and woman. But we are to understand them to mean that the consent is the efficient cause of marriage, which is the doctrine of the Fathers of the Council of Florence;5 because, without the consent and contract, the obligation and tie cannot possibly exist.

The Kind of Consent Required in Matrimony
It is most necessary that the consent be expressed in words denoting present time.

MUTUAL
Marriage is not a mere donation, but a mutual agreement; and therefore the consent of one of the parties is insufficient for marriage, while the mutual consent of both is essential.

EXTERNAL
To declare this consent words are obviously necessary. If the internal consent alone, without any external indication, were sufficient for marriage, it would then seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that were two persons, living in the most separate and distant countries, to consent to marry, they would contract a true and indissoluble marriage, even before they had mutually signified to each other their consent by letter or messenger - a consequence as repugnant to reason as it is opposed to the decrees and established usage of holy Church.

PRESENT
Rightly was it said that the consent must be expressed in words which have reference to present time; for words which signify a future time, promise, but do not actually unite in marriage. Besides, it is evident that what is to be done has no present existence, and what has no present existence can have little or no firmness or stability. Hence a man who has only promised to marry a certain woman acquires by the promise no marriage rights, since his promise has not yet been fulfilled. Such promises are, it is true, obligatory, and their violation involves the offending party in a breach of faith. But he who has once entered into the matrimonial alliance, regret it as he afterwards may, cannot possibly change, or invalidate, or undo what has been done.
As, then, the marriage contract is not a mere promise, but a transfer of right, by which the man actually yields the dominion of his body to the woman, the woman the dominion of her body to the man, it must therefore be made in words which designate the present time, the force of which words abides with undiminished efficacy from the moment of their utterance, and binds the husband and wife by a tie that cannot be broken.
Instead of words, however, it may be sufficient for marriage to substitute a nod or other unequivocal sign of internal consent. Even silence, when the result of female modesty, may be sufficient, provided the parents answer for their daughter.

The Essence of Marriage Constituted by the Consent
Hence pastors should teach the faithful that the nature and force of marriage consists in the tie and obligation; and that, without consummation, the consent of the parties, expressed in the manner already explained, is sufficient to constitute a true marriage. It is certain that our first parents before their fall, when, according to the holy Fathers, no consummation took place, were really united in marriage.6 Hence the Fathers say that marriage consists not in its use, but in the consent. This doctrine is repeated by St. Ambrose in his book On Virgins.7 *

Twofold Consideration of Marriage
When these matters have been explained, it should be taught that matrimony is to be considered from two points of view either as a natural union, since it was not invented by man but instituted by nature; or as a Sacrament, the efficacy of which transcends the order of nature.

Marriage as a Natural Contract
As grace perfects nature, and as that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual,8 the order of our matter requires that we first treat of Matrimony as a natural contract, imposing natural duties, and next consider what pertains to it as a Sacrament.


INSTITUTED BY GOD
The faithful, therefore, are to be taught in the first place that marriage was instituted by God. We read in Genesis that God created them male and female, and blessed them, saying: "Increase and multiply"; and also: "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself." And a little further on: But for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built a rib which he took from Adam into a woman, and brought her to Adam; and Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man: wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh."9 These words, according to the authority of our Lord Himself, as we read in St. Matthew, prove the divine institution of Matrimony.10 *

MARRIAGE IS INDISSOLUBLE BY DIVINE LAW
Not only did God institute marriage; He also, as the Council of Trent declares, rendered it perpetual and indissoluble.11 What God has joined together, says our Lord, let not man separate.12
Although it belongs to marriage as a natural contract to be indissoluble, yet its indissolubility arises principally from its nature as a Sacrament, as it is the sacramental character that, in all its natural relations, elevates marriage to the highest perfection. In any event, dissolubility is at once opposed to the proper education of children, and to the other advantages of marriage.

MARRIAGE NOT OBLIGATORY ON ALL
The words increase and multiply,13 which were uttered by the Lord, do not impose on every individual an obligation to marry, but only declare the purpose of the institution of marriage. Now that the human race is widely diffused, not only is there no law rendering marriage obligatory, but, on the contrary, virginity is highly exalted and strongly recommended in Scripture as superior to marriage, and as a state of greater perfection and holiness. For our Lord and Saviour taught as follows: He that can take it, let him take it;14 and the Apostle says: Concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord; but I give counsel as having obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful.15

THE MOTIVES AND ENDS OF MARRIAGE
We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.
A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture. Hence the Angel, when informing Tobias of the means of repelling the violent assaults of the evil demon, says: I will show thee who they are over whom the devil can prevail; for they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil has power. He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children.16 It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime - nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.
Deinde subiecit: „Accipics virginem cum timore Domini, amore filiorum magis, quam libidinc ductus, ut in semine Abrahae benedictioncm in filiis consequaris." Atque una eliam haec causa fuit, cur Deus ab initio matrimonium constituerit. Quare fit, ut illorum sit scelus gravissimum, qui matrimonio iuncti medicamcntis vel conccptum impediunt, vel partum abigunt; haec enim homicidarum impia conspiratio existimanda est.
A third reason has been added, as a consequence of the fall of our first parents. On account of the loss of original innocence the passions began to rise in rebellion against right reason; and man, conscious of his own frailty and unwilling to fight the battles of the flesh, is supplied by marriage with an antidote by which to avoid sins of lust. For fear of fornication, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband;17 and a little after, having recommended to married persons a temporary abstinence from the marriage debt, to give themselves to prayer, he adds: Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
These are ends, some one of which, those who desire to contract marriage piously and religiously, as becomes the children of the Saints, should propose to themselves. If to these we add other causes which induce to contract marriage, and, in choosing a wife, to prefer one person to another, such as the desire of leaving an heir, wealth, beauty, illustrious descent, congeniality of disposition - such motives, because not inconsistent with the holiness of marriage, are not to be condemned. We do not find that the Sacred Scriptures condemn the Patriarch Jacob for having chosen Rachel for her beauty, in preference to Lia.18 *
So much should be explained regarding Matrimony as a natural contract.

Marriage Considered as a Sacrament
It will now be necessary to explain that Matrimony is far superior in its sacramental aspect and aims at any incomparably higher end. For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race; so was the sacramental dignity subsequently conferred upon it in order that a people might be begotten and brought up for the service and worship of the true God and of Christ our Saviour.
Thus when Christ our Lord wished to give a sign of the intimate union that exists between Him and His Church and of His immense love for us, He chose especially the sacred union of man and wife. That this sign was a most appropriate one will readily appear from the fact that of all human relations there is none that binds so closely as the marriage-tie, and from the fact that husband and wife are bound to one another by the bonds of the greatest affection and love. Hence it is that Holy Writ so frequently represents to us the divine union of Christ and the Church under the figure of marriage.

MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT
That Matrimony is a Sacrament the Church, following the authority of the Apostles, has always held to be certain and incontestable. In his Epistle to the Ephesians he writes: Men should love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.19 Now his expression, this is a great sacrament, undoubtedly refers to Matrimony, and must be taken to mean that the union of man and wife, which has God for its Author, is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of that most holy union that binds Christ our Lord to His Church.
That this is the true and proper meaning of the Apostle's words is shown by the ancient holy Fathers who have interpreted them, and by the explanation furnished by the Council of Trent.20 It is indubitable, therefore, that the Apostle compares the husband to Christ, and the wife to the Church; that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church;21 and that for this very reason the husband should love his wife and the wife love and respect her husband. For Christ loved his church, and gave himself for her;22 while as the same Apostle teaches, the church is subject to Christ.23
That grace is also signified and conferred by this Sacrament, which are two properties that constitute the principal characteristics of each Sacrament, is declared by the Council as follows: By his passion Christ, the Author and Perfecter of the venerable Sacraments, merited for us the grace that perfects the natural love (of husband and wife), confirms their indissoluble union, and sanctifies them.24 It should, therefore, be shown that by the grace of this Sacrament husband and wife are joined in the bonds of mutual love, cherish affection one towards the other, avoid illicit attachments and passions, and so keep their marriage honourable in all things, . . . and their bed undefiled.25 *

Marriage before Christ
IT WAS NOT A SACRAMENT
How much the Sacrament of Matrimony is superior to the marriages made both previous to and under the (Mosaic) Law may be judged from the fact that though the Gentiles themselves were convinced there was something divine in marriage, and for that reason regarded promiscuous intercourse as contrary to the law of nature, while they also considered fornication, adultery and other kinds of impurity to be punishable offences; yet their marriages never had any sacramental value.
Among the Jews the laws of marriage were observed far more religiously, and it cannot be doubted that their unions were endowed with more holiness. As they had received from God the promise that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed,26 it was justly considered by them to be a very pious duty to bring forth children, and thus contribute to the propagation of the chosen people from whom Christ the Lord and Saviour was to derive His birth in His human nature. Still their unions also fell short of the real nature of a Sacrament.

BEFORE CHRIST MARRIAGE HAD FALLEN FROM ITS PRIMITIVE UNITY AND INDISSOLUBILITY
It should be added that if we consider the law of nature after the fall and the Law of Moses we shall easily see that marriage had fallen from its original honor and purity. Thus under the law of nature we read of many of the ancient Patriarchs that they had several wives at the same time; while under the Law of Moses it was permissible, should cause exist, to repudiate one's wife by giving her a bill of divorce. Both these (concessions) have been suppressed by the law of the Gospel,28 and marriage has been restored to its original state.

Christ Restored to Marriage its Primitive Qualities
UNITY OF MARRIAGE
Though some of the ancient Patriarchs are not to be blamed for having married several wives, since they did not act thus without divine dispensation, yet Christ our Lord has clearly shown that polygamy is not in keeping with the nature of Matrimony. These are His words: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh; and He adds: wherefore they are no more two but one flesh.29 In these words He makes it clear that God instituted marriage to be the union of two, and only two persons. The same truth He has taught very distinctly in another passage, wherein He says: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.30 For if it were lawful for a man to have several wives, there is no reason why he who takes to himself a second wife, along with the wife he already has, should be regarded as more guilty of adultery than if he had dismissed his first wife and taken a second.
Hence it is that when an infidel who, following the customs of his country has married several wives, happens to be converted to the true religion, the Church orders him to dismiss all but the first, and regard her alone as his true and lawful wife.*

INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE
The self-same testimony of Christ our Lord easily proves that the marriage-tie cannot be broken by any sort of divorce. For if by a bill of divorce a woman were freed from the law that binds her to her husband, she might marry another husband without being in the least guilty of adultery. Yet our Lord says clearly: Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery.31 Hence it is plain that the bond of marriage can be dissolved by death alone, as is confirmed by the Apostle when he says: A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die she is at liberty; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord;32 and again: To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.33 To the wife, then, who for a just cause has left her husband, the Apostle offers this alternative: Let her either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Nor does holy Church permit husband and wife to separate without weighty reasons.

ADVANTAGES OF INDISSOLUBILITY
Lest, however, the law of Matrimony should seem too severe on account of its absolute indissolubility, the advantages of this indissolubility should be pointed out.
The first (beneficial consequence) is that men are given to understand that in entering Matrimony virtue and congeniality of disposition are to be preferred to wealth or beauty - a circumstance that cannot but prove of the very highest advantage to the interests of society at large.
In the second place, if marriage could be dissolved by divorce, married persons would hardly ever be without causes of disunion, which would be daily supplied by the old enemy of peace and purity; while, on the contrary, now that the faithful must remember that even though separated as to bed and board, they remain none the less bound by the bond of marriage with no hope of marrying another, they are by this very fact rendered less prone to strife and discord. And even if it sometimes happens that husband and wife become separated, and are unable to bear the want of their partnership any longer, they are easily reconciled by friends and return to their common life.
The pastor should not here omit the salutary admonition of St. Augustine who, to convince the faithful that they should not consider it a hardship to receive back the wife they have put away for adultery, provided she repents of her crime, observes: Why should not the Christian husband receive back his wife when the Church receives her? And why should not the wife pardon her adulterous but penitent husband when Christ has already pardoned him?34 True it is that Scripture calls him foolish who keepeth an adulteress;35 but the meaning refers to her who refuses to repent of her crime and quit the disgraceful course she has entered on.
From all this it will be clear that Christian marriage is far superior in dignity and perfection to that of Gentiles and Jews.

The Three Blessings of Marriage
The faithful should also be shown that there are three blessings of marriage: children, fidelity and the Sacrament. These are blessings which to some degree compensate for the inconveniences referred to by the Apostle in the words: Such shall have tribulation of the flesh,36 and they lead to this other result that sexual intercourse, which is sinful outside of marriage, is rendered right and honorable.

OFFSPRING
The first blessing, then, is a family, that is to say, children born of a true and lawful wife. So highly did the Apostle esteem this blessing that he says: The woman shall be saved by bearing children.37 These words are to be understood not only of bearing children, but also of bringing them up and training them to the practice of piety; for the Apostle immediately subjoins: If she continue in faith. Scripture says: Hast thou children? Instruct them and bow down their necks from childhood.38 The same is taught by the Apostle; while Tobias, Job and other holy Patriarchs in Sacred Scripture furnish us with beautiful examples of such training. The duties of both parents and children will, however, be set forth in detail when we come to speak of the fourth Commandment.

FIDELITY
The second advantage of marriage is faith, not indeed that virtue which we receive in Baptism; but the fidelity which binds wife to husband and husband to wife in such a way that they mutually deliver to each other power over their bodies, promising at the same time never to violate the holy bond of Matrimony.39 This is easily inferred from the words pronounced by Adam when taking Eve as his wife, and which were afterwards confirmed by Christ our Lord in the Gospel: Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh.40 It is also inferred from the words of the Apostle: The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and in like manner, the husband has not power of his own body but the wife.41 Justly, then, did the Lord in the Old Law ordain the most severe penalties against adulterers who violated this conjugal fidelity.42
Matrimonial fidelity also demands that they love one another with a special, holy and pure love; not as adulterers love one another but as Christ loves His Church. This is the rule laid down by the Apostle when he says: Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church.43 And surely (Christ's) love for His Church was immense; it was a love inspired not by His own advantage, but only by the advantage of His spouse.

SACRAMENT
The third advantage is called the Sacrament, that is to say, the indissoluble bond of marriage. As the Apostle has it: The Lord commanded that the wife depart not from the husband, and if she depart that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.44 And truly, if marriage as a Sacrament represents the union of Christ with His Church, it also necessarily follows that just as Christ never separates Himself from His Church, so in like manner the wife can never be separated from her husband in so far as regards the marriage-tie.*

The Duties of Married People
The more easily to preserve the holy state (of marriage) from dissensions, the duties of husband and wife as inculcated by St. Paul and by the Prince of the Apostles must be explained.

DUTIES OF A HUSBAND
It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honorably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion.45 Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers., that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.
The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.
He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.

DUTIES OF A WIFE
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.46
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.

The Law of the Church on Marriage
THE RITE TO BE OBSERVED
Having explained these matters, pastors should next teach what rites are to be observed in contracting marriage. There is no need, however, that we dwell on these questions here. The Council of Trent has laid down fully and accurately what must be chiefly observed; and this decree will not be unknown to pastors. It will suffice, then, to admonish them to study to make themselves acquainted, from the doctrine of the Council, with what regards this subject, and to explain it carefully to the faithful.47
But above all, lest young persons, whose period of life is marked by extreme indiscretion, should be deceived by a merely nominal marriage and foolishly rush into sinful love-unions, the pastor cannot too frequently remind them that there can be no true and valid marriage unless it be contracted in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest commissioned by him, or by the Ordinary, and that of a certain number of witnesses.

THE IMPEDIMENTS OF MARRIAGE
The impediments of marriage are also to be explained, a subject so minutely and accurately treated by many grave and learned writers on the virtues and vices as to render it an easy task to draw upon their labors, particularly as the pastor has occasion to have such works continually in his hands. The instructions, therefore, which such books contain, and also the decrees of the Council with regard to the impediments arising from spiritual relationship, from public honesty, and from fornication, the pastor should peruse with attention and expound with care.48 *

The Recipient of Matrimony
DISPOSITIONS WITH WHICH THE SACRAMENT IS TO BE APPROACHED
From the above may he learned the dispositions with which the faithful should contract matrimony. They should consider that they are about to enter upon a work that is not human but divine. The example of the Fathers of the Old Law, who esteemed marriage as a most holy and religious rite, although it had not then been raised to the dignity of a Sacrament, shows the singular purity of soul and piety (with which Christians should approach marriage).*

CONSENT OF PARENTS
Among other things, children should be exhorted earnestly that they owe as a tribute of respect to their parents, or to those under whose guardianship and authority they are placed, not to contract marriage without their knowledge, still less in defiance of their express wishes. It should be observed that in the Old Law children were always given in marriage by their fathers; and that the will of the parent is always to have very great influence on the choice of the child, is clear from these words of the Apostle: He that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.49

THE USE OF MARRIAGE
Finally, the use of marriage is a subject which pastors should so treat as to avoid any expression that may be unfit to meet the ears of the faithful, that may be calculated to offend the piety of some, or excite the laughter of others. The words of the Lord are chaste words;50 and the teacher of a Christian people should make use of the same kind of language, one that is characterized by singular gravity and purity of soul. Two lessons of instruction to the faithful are, then, to be specially insisted upon.
The first is that marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord. It should be remembered that the Apostle admonishes: They that have wives, let them be as though they had them not,51 and that St. Jerome says: The love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.52
But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.
Thus will they find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine grace; and living in the pursuit of piety, they will not only spend this life in peace and tranquillity, but will also repose in the true and firm hope, which confoundeth not,53 of arriving, through the divine goodness, at the possession of that life which is eternal.*
Very little in the way of ABC/NFP so called.  On the Commandment against Murder, which is refered above, only says this
Quote
There are, however, two cases in which guilt attaches (to accidental death). The first case is when death results from an unlawful act; when, for instance, a person kicks or strikes a woman in a state of pregnancy, and abortion follows. The consequence, it is true, may not have been intended, but this does not exculpate the offender, because the act of striking a pregnant woman is in itself unlawful.
to this I'll add from Trent
Quote
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
"Thou shalt not commit adultery"
THE POSITION OF THIS COMMANDMENT IN THE DECALOGUE IS MOST SUITABLE
The bond between man and wife is one of the closest, and nothing can be more gratifying to both than to know that they are objects of mutual and special affection. On the other hand, nothing inflicts deeper anguish than to feel that the legitimate love which one owes the other has been transferred elsewhere. Rightly, then, and in its natural order, is the Commandment which protects human life against the hand of the murderer, followed by that which forbids adultery and which aims to prevent anyone from injuring or destroying by such a crime the holy and honorable union of marriage - a union which is generally the source of ardent affection and love.

IMPORTANCE OF CAREFUL INSTRUCTION ON THIS COMMANDMENT
In the explanation of this Commandment, however, the pastor has need of great caution and prudence, and should treat with great delicacy a subject which requires brevity rather than copiousness of exposition. For it is to be feared that if he explained in too great detail or at length the ways in which this Commandment is violated, he might unintentionally speak of subjects which, instead of extinguishing, usually serve rather to inflame corrupt passion.
As, however, the precept contains many things which cannot be passed over in silence, the pastor should explain them in their proper order and place.*

TWO PARTS OF THIS COMMANDMENT
This Commandment, then, resolves itself into two heads; the one expressed, which prohibits adultery; the other implied, which inculcates purity of mind and body.
What this Commandment Prohibits

ADULTERY FORBIDDEN
To begin with the prohibitory part (of the Commandment), adultery is the defilement of the marriage bed, whether it be one's own or another's. If a married man have intercourse with an unmarried woman, he violates the integrity of his marriage bed; and if an unmarried man have intercourse with a married woman, he defiles the sanctity of the marriage bed of another.

OTHER SINS AGAINST CHASTITY ARE FORBIDDEN
But that every species of immodesty and impurity are included in this prohibition of adultery, is proved by the testimonies of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose;2 and that such is the meaning of the Commandment is borne out by the Old, as well as the New Testament. In the writings of Moses, besides adultery, other sins against chastity are said to have been punished. Thus the book of Genesis records the judgment of Judah against his daughter-in-law.
Interesting, nothing on Onan.
Quote
3 In Deuteronomy is found the excellent law of Moses, that there should be no harlot amongst the daughters of Israel.4 Take heed to keep thyself, my son, from all fornication,5 is the exhortation of Tobias to his son; and in Ecclesiasticus we read: Be ashamed of looking upon a harlot.6
In the Gospel, too, Christ the Lord says: From the heart come forth adulteries and fornications, which defile a man.7 The Apostle Paul expresses his detestation of this crime frequently, and in the strongest terms: This is the will of God, your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication;8 Fly fornication;9 Keep not company with fornicators;10 Fornication, and all uncleanness and covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you;11 Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites shall possess the kingdom of God.12

WHY ADULTERY IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED
But the reason why adultery is expressly forbidden is because in addition to the turpitude which it shares with other kinds of incontinence, it adds the sin of injustice, not only against our neighbor, but also against civil society.
Again it is certain that he who abstains not from other sins against chastity, will easily fall into the crime of adultery. By the prohibition of adultery, therefore, we at once see that every sort of immodesty and impurity by which the body is defiled is prohibited. Nay, that every inward thought against chastity is forbidden by this Commandment is clear, as well from the very force of the law, which is evidently spiritual, as also from these words of Christ the Lord: You have heard that it was said to them of old: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.13
These are the points which we have deemed proper matter for public instruction of the faithful. The pastor, however, should add the decrees of the Council of Trent against adulterers, and those who keep harlots and concubines,14 omitting many other species of immodesty and lust, of which each individual is to be admonished privately, as circumstances of time and person may require.*

What this Commandment Prescribes
PURITY ENJOINED
We now come to explain the positive part of the precept. The faithful are to be taught and earnestly exhorted to cultivate continence and chastity with all care, to cleanse themselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.15
First of all they should be taught that although the virtue of chastity shines with a brighter lustre in those who make the holy and religious vow of virginity, nevertheless it is a virtue which belongs also to those who lead a life of celibacy; or who, in the married state, preserve themselves pure and undefiled from unlawful desire.*
Reflections which Help one to Practice Purity
The holy Fathers have taught us many means whereby to subdue the passions and to restrain sinful pleasure. The pastor, therefore, should make it his study to explain these accurately to the faithful, and should use the utmost diligence in their exposition. Of these means some are reflections, others are active measures.

IMPURITY EXCLUDES FROM HEAVEN
The first kind consists chiefly in our forming a just conception of the filthiness and evil of this sin; for such knowledge will lead one more easily to detest it. Now the evil of this crime we may learn from the fact that, on account of it, man is banished and excluded from the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all evils.

IMPURITY IS A FILTHY SIN
The above-mentioned calamity is indeed common to every mortal sin. But what is peculiar to this sin is that fornicators are said to sin against their own bodies, according to the words of the Apostle: Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body.16 The reason is that such a one does an injury to his own body by violating its sanctity. Hence St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, says: This is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication, that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God.17
Furthermore, what is still more criminal, the Christian who shamefully sins with a harlot makes the members of Christ the members of an harlot, according to these words of St. Paul: Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot is made one body?18 Moreover, a Christian, as St. Paul testifies, is the temple of the Holy Spirit;19 and to violate this temple is nothing else than to expel the Holy Spirit.

ADULTERY IS A GRAVE INJUSTICE
But the crime of adultery involves that of grievous injustice. If, as the Apostle says, they who are joined in wedlock are so subject to each other that neither has power or right over his or her body, but both are bound, as it were, by a mutual bond of subjection, the husband to accommodate himself to the will of the wife, the wife to the will of the husband; most certainly if either dissociate his or her person, which is the right of the other, from him or her to whom it is bound, the offender is guilty of an act of great injustice and wickedness.20

ADULTERY IS DISGRACEFUL
As dread of disgrace strongly stimulates to the performance of duty and deters from the commission of crime, the pastor should also teach that adultery brands its guilty perpetrators with an unusual stigma. He that is an adulterer, says Scripture, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul: he gathereth to himself shame and dishonour, and his reproach shall not be blotted out.21

IMPURITY SEVERELY PUNISHED
The grievousness of the sin of adultery may be easily inferred from the severity of its punishment. According to the law promulgated by God in the Old Testament, the adulterer was stoned to death.22 Nay more, because of the criminal passion of one man, not only the perpetrator of the crime, but a whole city was destroyed, as we read with regard to the Sichemites.23 The Sacred Scriptures abound with examples of the divine vengeance, such as the destruction of Sodom and of the neighboring cities,24 the punishment of the Israelites who committed fornication in the wilderness with the daughters of Moab,25 and the slaughter of the Benjamites.26 These examples the pastor can easily make use of to deter men from shameful lust.*

IMPURITY BLINDS THE MIND AND HARDENS THE HEART
But even though the adulterer may escape the punishment of death, he does not escape the great pains and torments that often overtake such sins as his. He becomes afflicted with blindness of mind, a most severe punishment; he is lost to all regard for God, for reputation, for honor, for family, and even for life; and thus, utterly abandoned and worthless, he is undeserving of confidence in any matter of moment, and becomes unfitted to discharge any kind of duty.
Of this we find examples in the persons of David and of Solomon. David had no sooner fallen into the crime of adultery than he degenerated into a character the very reverse of what he had been before; from the mildest of men he became so cruel as to consign to death Urias, one of his most deserving subjects.27 Solomon, having abandoned himself to the lust of women, gave up the true religion to follow strange gods.28 This sin, therefore, as Osee observes, takes away man's heart and often blinds his understanding.29

Means of Practicing Purity
AVOIDANCE OF IDLENESS
We now come to the remedies which consist in action. The first is studiously to avoid idleness; for, according to Ezechiel, it was by yielding to the enervating influence of idleness that the Sodomites plunged into the most shameful crime of criminal lust.30 *

TEMPERANCE
In the next place, intemperance is carefully to be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they committed adultery.31 An overloaded stomach begets impurity. This our Lord intimates in these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness.32 Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury.33 *

CUSTODY OF THE EYES
But the eyes, in particular, are the inlets to criminal passion, and to this refer these words of our Lord: If thine eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.34 The Prophets, also, frequently speak to the same effect. I made a covenant with mine eyes, says Job, that I would not so much as think upon a virgin.35 Finally, there are on record innumerable examples of the evils which have their origin in the indulgence of the eyes. It was thus that David sinned,36 thus that the king of Sichem fell,37 and thus also that the elders sinned who calumniated Susanna.38

AVOIDANCE OF IMMODEST DRESS
Too much display in dress, which especially attracts the eye, is but too frequently an occasion of sin. Hence the admonition of Ecclesiasticus: Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up.39
As women are given to excessive fondness for dress, it will not be unseasonable in the pastor to give some attention to the subject, and sometimes to admonish and reprove them in the impressive words of the Apostle Peter: Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel.40 St. Paul likewise says: Not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire.41 Many women adorned with gold and precious stones, have lost the only true ornament of their soul and body.*

AVOIDANCE OF IMPURE CONVERSATION, READING, PICTURES
Next to the sexual excitement, usually provoked by too studied an elegance of dress, follows another, which is indecent and obscene conversation. Obscene language is a torch which lights up the worst passions of the young mind; and the Apostle has said, that evil communications corrupt good manners.42 Immodest and passionate songs and dances are most productive of this same effect and are, therefore, cautiously to be avoided.
In the same class are to be numbered soft and obscene books which must be avoided no less than indecent pictures. All such things possess a fatal influence in exciting to unlawful attractions, and in inflaming the mind of youth. In these matters the pastor should take special pains to see that the faithful most carefully observe the pious and prudent regulations of the Council of Trent.43

FREQUENTATION OF THE SACRAMENTS
If the occasions of sin which we have just enumerated be carefully avoided, almost every excitement to lust will be removed. But the most efficacious means for subduing its violence are frequent use of confession and Communion, as also unceasing and devout prayer to God, accompanied by fasting and almsdeeds. Chastity is a gift of God.44 To those who ask it aright He does not deny it; nor does He suffer us to be tempted beyond our strength.45

MORTIFICATION
But the body is to be mortified and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly, by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages, and other works of austerity. By these and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested. In connection with this subject, St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: Every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things; and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible one.46 A little after he says: I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. And in another place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence.47
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Trent3.php

Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #316 on: November 10, 2010, 01:28:53 PM »

I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Because there is no question of me taking things out of context.
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: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #317 on: November 10, 2010, 01:30:02 PM »

I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Because there is no question of me taking things out of context.
But who is going to read all of that on an internet forum?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #318 on: November 10, 2010, 02:19:14 PM »

I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Because there is no question of me taking things out of context.
But who is going to read all of that on an internet forum?
LOL. Evidently you:
this got a little out of hand (yeah, I know. surprise). People can dissect it as they wish, as I don't have the time right now to better chop it up...

I really pray that everyone will take the time to read your post.  It is, by far, the best exposition on these topics I've read thus far.

I also can't wait to read David's response!  This thread, I think, has been the most fascinating one I've been on in such a long time!  It feels like we're all finally being honest and following the discussion wherever it leads instead of dropping it when it just starts to get interesting!

PoM nominee!

Oh, and what isa said!
 Wink

(isa, you rock! That was a fantastic post!)

[/b]
Isa, that long post on apostolic succesion was great. See when you are not attacking "The Vatican", you really have some great information to share.  Grin
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: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #319 on: November 10, 2010, 02:25:49 PM »

I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Why don't you ever shave down your quotes to the essential parts?
Because there is no question of me taking things out of context.
But who is going to read all of that on an internet forum?
LOL. Evidently you:
this got a little out of hand (yeah, I know. surprise). People can dissect it as they wish, as I don't have the time right now to better chop it up...

I really pray that everyone will take the time to read your post.  It is, by far, the best exposition on these topics I've read thus far.

I also can't wait to read David's response!  This thread, I think, has been the most fascinating one I've been on in such a long time!  It feels like we're all finally being honest and following the discussion wherever it leads instead of dropping it when it just starts to get interesting!

PoM nominee!

Oh, and what isa said!
 Wink

(isa, you rock! That was a fantastic post!)

[/b]
Isa, that long post on apostolic succesion was great. See when you are not attacking "The Vatican", you really have some great information to share.  Grin
That actually was one fo the few full posts from you that I have ever read. Honestly, the only reason I did was because it didn't look like another one of your anti-Catholic rants.
When I see 50 paragraph posts about how the Catholic Church is "evil" I am not going to waste my time.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 02:26:27 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
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: 37,124



« Reply #320 on: November 10, 2010, 02:33:01 PM »

That actually was one fo the few full posts from you that I have ever read. Honestly, the only reason I did was because it didn't look like another one of your anti-Catholic rants.
When I see 50 paragraph posts about how the Catholic Church is "evil"
I never post that the Catholic Church is "evil," or even the Vatican.

Quote
I am not going to waste my time.
Your choice. But you can't then complain that we have not fully supported and documented the facts.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #321 on: November 10, 2010, 03:27:56 PM »

And the apologetics get quite inventive:
Quote
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

And of course, there's Onan:
Quote
The most popular modern day, rationale that Protestants use, is that Onan is killed because he did not fulfill the obligation to marry and bear children for Tamar. There are several reasons why this is not a reasonable explanation. First, we need to compare Gen. 38 to Deuteronomy 25:1-10, which eliminates this possible explanation. It says in Deuteronomy, that regardless of a man's motives for refusing to raise up seed for a dead brother, the man is not to be put to death. Thus, the person not only does not marry, but also provides no offspring for his brother who died: The Levirate responsibility. Here in Deuteronomy, he is to be humiliated only (shoe pulled off, face spit on, etc.). On the other hand, Onan was put to death for what he did, while the man in Deu. 25 is not.


As we compare the two Bible texts (Gen. 38:8-10 and Deu. 25:5-10) we need to ask ourselves, "What did Onan do that the man of Deu. 25 didn't do?" The difference in conduct explains the difference in the penalty meted out by God. And the difference is that Onan wasted (killed, destroyed) his seed, the other man did not. Suppose the man in Deu. 25 thinks exactly as Onan, saying to himself, "I don't want to raise up seed for my brother," yet doesn't waste his seed? What happens to him according to the law of God? -- humiliation only, regardless of his unloving thoughts. (Provan, The Bible and Birth Control p. 13)


Notice the text. It says that what he did was displeasing to God. He did spill the semen, thus enjoy sex, and made sure that there were no consequences. What did Onan do that displeased God? Notice that in the verse, he spilled the semen on the ground. However, the word that is used for spilling semen on the ground is not merely spill. I find out from Provan, that 'The verb used is not for merely emitting semen. Out of all the verses which mention the emission of semen in the Old Testament, the Onan verse 'he wasted his seed on the ground' is the only verse to employ the word 'shachath' (which means 'to waste, corrupt, destroy, devastate', . This word is used in many passages as a synonym for 'killed.', destroy. (For example see Gen. 6:17, 9:15 and Judges 20:21) Does one not see that there might be a reason for Onan's emission of seed to described as a 'killing' of seed, while all other passages use words which merely mean 'emit'? The reason is that in all other passages, no one does anything to intentionally harm the semen--but in Onan's case, he deliberately killed his. If 'there is nothing in the whole Bible that specifically condemns the spilling of the seed', then why does Scripture use the very negative word 'shacath' in Onan's case but not in any of the others? (Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, p. 40)

As a matter of fact, we do not have to go to Deuteronomy 25 to show that this argument is insufficient. We can look at Genesis 38 itself to see that the argument that Onan was killed because of his refusing to fulfill the obligation to raise up children is insufficient. This theory that God is punishing Onan merely because he failed to fulfill the Levirate rule makes God capricious. For example, in this very chapter of Genesis, not only does Judah not get punished for doing the very same thing as Onan did, (withholding his son Selah from her), but Selah himself withholds himself from her. Given that Judah himself compounds the problem by making her a harlot, Onan's specific act of destroying seed takes a larger picture. Judah had promised to give Tamar his son to her (v.11), when he was older. Judah himself is deceitful, and he himself, when caught, admits that he is a worse sinner than herself (v. 26). Shelah himself, who was now grown up, (v. 14), also was deceitful, should have taken her as her husband, and raised up children. He did not. Tamar notices this, but no deaths of either Judah or Shelah. Thus, they were all in a sense rebellious, and did not do what they should have. So, what is the difference between Judah, Onan, and Shelah? The only substantive fact is that Onan went into her lawfully as he married her (unlike Judah who went into her unlawfully), but only Onan destroyed the seed. Ultimately any attempt to exclude this as the principle grounds of Onan's death, is a pure attempt at expediency.
One has argued that there is another difference between Onan and the person in Deut. 25 that makes it worse. That he married her, but refused to raise up children.

Actually, that would make Onan actually better, because he actually married the sister. Thus, he is better off even than those who wouldn't marry the sister. Thus, he shouldn't have even been criticized and humiliated by Tamar, as prescribed for those in Deuteronomy 25. The fact that Onan married her actually means he obeyed what he should have done in this specific area. Although God in his own wisdom sometimes treat people differently, and punishes them differently, for the most part, he is equitable in his treatment of people. There is nothing shown in Judah's or his son Shelah's life, that show that they had a great relationship with God and that is how they did this with no repercussions while Onan was killed. This reasoning thus falls short of explaining the difference.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/birthcontrol.html
Question is, what is the difference between the man who just refuses to sleep with his wife when she is in her infertile period?  Something the HV apologists never focus on is the text gives Onan's intention.  How is that different, in these apologies, from the intention behind NFP?

I was just thinking how interesting that the supporters of HV, as here, are zealous for each and every spermazoa of Onan (all, millions of them, except one destined to die anyway even if he managed to impregnate Tamar), place so little value on defending Tamar from being used as less than a concubine: at least concubines get children. Btw, Onan, contrary to what is argued above, is worse than the man in Deut. 25.  "Thus, he shouldn't have even been criticized and humiliated by Tamar, as prescribed for those in Deuteronomy 25." Thus, Onan committed fraud to avoid being cricitized and humiliated as prescribed by Deut. 25. Odd what actions they deem "better."

As for the "Biblical support" from Ananias and Sapphira, the supporters of HV, grasping at string, risk hanging their argument.
Quote
Eph. 5:25 - Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.

1 Cor. 7:5 - this verse supports the practice of natural family planning ("NFP"). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.
If abstaining is withholding a gift, then withholding fertility can be done as well.

Btw
Quote
Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth
The mutilating the flesh of Phil. 3:2 is refering to circumcision, something God Himself commnded at one point.  Eph. 5:29-31 can be used against mortification (if you love your body, would you starve it?), and if twisted (as it is twisted here, but in hte opposite direction) it could be used to teach sex on demand, masturbation etc. (caring for the demands of the body), but moreover as an argument against the monastic vocation (is subjects the body to asceticism), a vocation which is diametrically opposed to the natural law (which is the role monasticism plays in the life of the Church).
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 03:28:51 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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #322 on: November 10, 2010, 04:27:04 PM »

I think that Father Francis A. Sullivan has said that HV may not be infallible teaching. One of the problems is that it has not been universally accepted.
The "secondary object" of infallibility. (Catholic teaching on sinfulness of artificial conception)
Theological Studies| September 01, 1993 | Sullivan, Francis A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_A._Sullivan
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #323 on: November 10, 2010, 05:12:49 PM »

Religion Saves: And Nine Other Misconceptions By Mark Driscoll
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ny4cHkl9NZsC&pg=PA26&dq=Clement+Alexandria+Onan&hl=en&ei=9QDbTLrbH8St8AbLlsj6CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#
deals with Onan (pointing out that using it as the prooftext against masturbation is liking using as a prooftext for it Ecclesiasticus 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might."), and St. Clement demonstrating that ABC/NFP wasn't a distinction these Fathers recognized, and the pagan Stoic thinking (the ancestor of HV's natural law basis).

For an evangelical Protestant, it is written quite well.  The chapter on contraceoption starts with an anecdote of a "population bomb" alarmist confronting Pastor Driscoll over his five children.

He also touches on some more sobering things: the role of constant pregnancy on mother Yates drowing their children.

I'm not crazy about sterilization, although I can't quite articulate why I'm against it. Driscoll gives an example I can't argue against, however: the couple had gone through so many miscarriages (18) that it was sucking the life right out of them, so the husband had a vasectomy.

I'm also looking at this, "Eastern Orthodoxy and Contraception: Contemporary Vs. Traditional Views:Teaching on contraception among Orthodox Churches"
http://www.hli.org/index.php/contraception/138?task=view
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #324 on: November 10, 2010, 05:17:18 PM »

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??
 
 
I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original Italian of Paul VI's address...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1964/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19640623_sacro-collegio_it.html

È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 05:20:44 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #325 on: November 10, 2010, 06:20:51 PM »

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

That wouldn't be the Great CAF Crash, which happened before my time, but the Great CAF Purge, which I had the horror to witness.

Quote
"I’m aware of the safeguarding of contraception on the basis of an intrinsic relation to the concept of “natural law”, but please explain this: Prior to the release of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI indirectly admitted in his address to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964 that the teaching on birth control may be changed - the Pope asserted the validity of the traditional RC teaching on birth control “at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it” (Osservatore Romano, June 24, 1964).

"The RCC places the sinfulness of contraception on a par with adultery, fornication, murder etc. as a mortal sin falling under natural law which cannot be altered. Is the Pope’s frank admission above indicative of a teaching which is unalterable by Rome’s criteria? What would your reaction be were a Pope to state that the teaching on adultery remains the same “as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to alter it”??
 
I believe that we are seeing, on the Roman Catholic side, the beginnings of a re-formulation of this matter. Proabably by discerning more deeply the principle of double effect, contraception will find greater acceptance among the papal theologians, and the overly rigorous teaching of Humanae Vitae will be deepened and clarified.

To be frank, I am of the opinion that this will take place, not because of any imperative of the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox but because a failure to do so will see a deepening crisis of authority within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I do not think that the clergy and the laity will find themselves able to go on living with the strain of the present double speak and pretense which requires them to say one thing while actually doing another.

So, I am optimistic on this matter.

The original Italian of Paul VI's address...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1964/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19640623_sacro-collegio_it.html

È allo studio, diciamo, che speriamo presto concludere con la collaborazione di molti ed insigni studiosi. Ne daremo pertanto presto le conclusioni nella forma che sarà ritenuta più adeguata all’oggetto trattato e allo scopo da conseguire. Ma diciamo intanto francamente che non abbiamo finora motivo sufficiente per ritenere superate e perciò non obbliganti le norme date da Papa Pio XII a tale riguardo; esse devono perciò ritenersi valide, almeno finché non Ci sentiamo in coscienza obbligati a modificarle. In tema di tanta gravità sembra bene che i Cattolici vogliano seguire un’unica legge, quale la Chiesa autorevolmente propone; e sembra pertanto opportuno raccomandare che nessuno per ora si arroghi di pronunciarsi in termini difformi dalla norma, vigente.
I'm trying to recall the Summa's natural law arguments for celebacy (no, I didn't buy them).
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: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #326 on: November 10, 2010, 07:15:26 PM »

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

That wouldn't be the Great CAF Crash, which happened before my time, but the Great CAF Purge, which I had the horror to witness.

The glorious rise to power of actual Catholic moderators in the EC sub-forum.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #327 on: November 10, 2010, 08:54:11 PM »

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

That wouldn't be the Great CAF Crash, which happened before my time, but the Great CAF Purge, which I had the horror to witness.

The glorious rise to power of actual Catholic moderators in the EC sub-forum.
So glorious that they had to destroy the evidence of their ascent. Reminds me of someone.
Quote
During the preceding Zhou Dynasty (700 BCE-221 BCE), later rulers of the independent states of China by convention used the title “King” (Chinese: 王; pinyin: Wáng). Following his defeat of the last of the Warring States in 221 BC, King Zheng of Qin became de facto ruler of all China. To celebrate this achievement and consolidate his power base, King Zheng created a new title calling himself the First Sovereign Qin Emperor (Chinese: 秦始皇帝; pinyin: Qín Shǐ Huángdì; Wade–Giles: Ch'in Shih Huang-ti), often shortened to Qin Shi Huang (Chinese: 秦始皇; pinyin: Qín Shǐ Huáng; Wade–Giles: Ch'in Shih-Huang).

The character (始) means “first”.[5] The first emperor's heirs would then be successively called "Second Emperor", "Third Emperor" and so on down the generations.[6]
The characters "皇帝" (pinyin: Huángdì) come from the mythical Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors Era (Chinese: 三皇五帝; pinyin: Sān Huáng Wŭ Dì) (3rd Century BC), from which the two characters (皇帝) are extracted.[7] By adding such a title, Qín Shǐ Huángdì hoped to appropriate some of the previous Yellow Emperor's (黃帝) divine status and prestige.[8]
Additionally, the character "Huáng" (皇) literally means "shining" or "splendid" and was "most frequently used as an epithet of Heaven."

While the previous Warring States era was one of constant warfare, it was also considered the golden age of free thought.[38] Qin Shi Huang eliminated the Hundred Schools of Thought which incorporated Confucianism and other philosophies.[38][39] After the unification of China, with all other schools of thought banned, legalism became the endorsed ideology of the Qin dynasty.[28] Legalism was basically a system that required the people to follow the laws or be punished accordingly.

Beginning in 213 BC, at the instigation of Li Si and to avoid scholars' comparisons of his reign with the past, Qin Shi Huang also ordered for most previously existing books to be burned, with the exception of books on astrology, agriculture, medicine, divination, and the history of the Qin state.[40] This would also serve the purpose of furthering the already ongoing reformation of the writing system by removing examples of now-obsolete scripts.[26] Owning the Book of Songs or the Classic of History was to be punished especially severely. According to the later Records of the Grand Historian, the following year Qin Shi Huang had some 460 scholars buried alive for owning the forbidden books.[40][41] The emperor's oldest son Fusu criticised him for this act.[42] The emperor's own library still had copies of the forbidden books, but most of these were destroyed later when Xiang Yu burned the palaces of Xianyang in 206 BCE

According to the Records of the Grand Historian, after Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, unified China in 221 BC, his chancellor Li Si suggested suppressing the intellectual discourse to unify all thoughts and political opinions. This was justified by accusations that the intelligentsia sang false praise and raised dissent through libel.

Beginning in 213 BC, all classic works of the Hundred Schools of Thought — except those from Li Si's own school of philosophy known as legalism — were subject to book burning.

Qin Shi Huang burned the other histories out of fear that they undermined his legitimacy, and wrote his own history books. Afterwards, Li Si took his place in this area.

Li Si proposed that all histories in the imperial archives except those written by the Qin historians be burned; that the Classic of Poetry, the Classic of History, and works by scholars of different schools be handed in to the local authorities for burning; that anyone discussing these two particular books be executed; that those using ancient examples to satirize contemporary politics be put to death, along with their families; that authorities who failed to report cases that came to their attention were equally guilty; and that those who had not burned the listed books within 30 days of the decree were to be banished to the north as convicts working on building the Great Wall. The only books to be spared in the destruction were books on medicine, agriculture and prophecy
As some of them were also Confucius scholars Fusu counselled that, with the country newly unified, and enemies still not pacified, such a harsh measure imposed on those who respect Confucius would cause instability.[2] However, he was unable to change his father's mind, and instead was sent to guard the frontier in a de facto exile.

The quick fall of the Qin Dynasty was attributed to this proscription. Confucianism was revived in the Han Dynasty that followed, and became the official ideology of the Chinese imperial state. Many of the other schools had disappeared. Every Scholar that was buried, was allowed a last sentence before they were buried, most of them used it on praying or crying out to their families, except one scholar named Shung Jangi, who nearly escaped the torture, but was captured and killed before being buried alive.

Later in his life, Qin Shi Huang feared death and desperately sought the fabled elixir of life, which would supposedly allow him to live forever. He was obsessed with acquiring immortality and fell prey to many who offered him supposed elixirs.[45] He visited Zhifu Island three times in order to achieve immortality.[46] In one case he sent Xu Fu, a Zhifu islander, with ships carrying hundreds of young men and women in search of the mystical Penglai mountain.[33] They were sent to find Anqi Sheng, a 1,000-year-old magician whom Qin Shi Huang had supposedly met in his travels and who had invited him to seek him there.[47] These people never returned, because they knew that if they returned without the promised elixir, they would surely be executed. Legends claim that they reached Japan and colonized it.[45] It is also possible that the book burning, a purge on what could be seen as wasteful and useless literature, was, in part, an attempt to focus the minds of the Emperor's best scholars on the alchemical quest. Some of the executed scholars were those who had been unable to offer any evidence of their supernatural schemes. This may have been the ultimate means of testing their abilities: if any of them had magic powers, then they would surely come back to life when they were let out again.[26] Since the great emperor was afraid of death and, "evil spirits", he had workers build a series of tunnels and passage ways to each of his palaces (over 200 were owned by him), because these would keep him safe from the evil spirits, as he traveled unseen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars

Another one who claimed the mandate of heaven.
Ah, but he who laughs last laughs best.
Quote
In 211 BC a large meteor is said to have fallen in Dongjun (東郡) in the lower reaches of the Yellow River. On it an unknown person inscribed the words "The First Emperor will die and his land will be divided."[48] When the emperor heard of this, he sent an imperial secretary to investigate this prophecy. No one would confess to the deed, so all the people living nearby were put to death. The stone was then burned and pulverized.[15]

The emperor died during one of his tours of Eastern China, on September 10, 210 BC (Julian Calendar) at the palace in Shaqiu prefecture (沙丘平台), about two months away by road from the capital Xianyang.[20][20][49][50] Reportedly, he died of swallowing mercury (poison) pills, made by his court scientists and doctors, which contained too much mercury.[51] Ironically, these pills were meant to make Qin Shi Huang immortal.[51]

After the emperor's death Prime Minister Li Si, who accompanied him, became extremely worried that the news of his death could trigger a general uprising in the empire.[20] It would take two months for the government to reach the capital, and it would not be possible to stop the uprising. Li Si decided to hide the death of the emperor, and return to Xianyang.[20] Most of the imperial entourage accompanying the emperor was left ignorant of the emperor's death; only a younger son, Ying Huhai, who was traveling with his father, the eunuch Zhao Gao, Li Si, and five or six favorite eunuchs knew of the death.[20] Li Si also ordered that two carts containing rotten fish be carried immediately before and after the wagon of the emperor. The idea behind this was to prevent people from noticing the foul smell emanating from the wagon of the emperor, where his body was starting to decompose severely as it was summertime.[20] They also pulled down the shade so no one could see his face, changed his clothes daily, brought food and when he had to have important conversations they would act as if he wanted to send them a message.
Eventually, after about two months, Li Si and the imperial court reached Xianyang, where the news of the death of the emperor was announced.[20] Qin Shi Huang did not like to talk about his own death and he had never written a will. After his death, the eldest son Fusu would normally become the next emperor.[52]

Li Si and the chief eunuch Zhao Gao conspired to kill Fusu because Fusu's favorite general was Meng Tian, whom they disliked[52] and feared; Meng Tian's brother, a senior minister, had once punished Zhao Gao.[53] They believed that if Fusu was enthroned, they would lose their power.[52] Li Si and Zhao Gao forged a letter from Qin Shi Huang saying that both Fusu and General Meng must commit suicide.[52] The plan worked, and the younger son Huhai became the Second Emperor, later known as Qin Er Shi or "Second Generation Qin."[20]

Qin Er Shi, however, was not as capable as his father. Revolts quickly erupted. His reign was a time of extreme civil unrest, and everything built by the First Emperor crumbled away within a short period

In traditional Chinese historiography, the First Emperor of the Chinese unified states was almost always portrayed as a brutal tyrant who had obsessive fear of assassination. Ideological prejudices against the Legalist State of Qin were established as early as 266 BC, when Confucian philosopher Xun Zi disparaged it. Later Confucian historians condemned the emperor who had burned the classics and buried Confucian scholars alive. They eventually compiled a list of the Ten Crimes of Qin to highlight his tyrannical actions.

The famous Han poet and statesman Jia Yi concluded his essay The Faults of Qin (過秦論), with what was to become the standard Confucian judgment of the reasons for Qin's collapse. Jia Yi's essay, admired as a masterpiece of rhetoric and reasoning, was copied into two great Han histories and has had a far-reaching influence on Chinese political thought as a classic illustration of Confucian theory.[60] He explained that the Qin disintegrated because it failed to display humanity and righteousness or to realise there is a difference between the power to attack and the power to consolidate.

Confucian historians condemned the emperor Qin Shi Huang in the Ten Crimes of Qin, a list that was compiled to highlight his tyrannical actions. The famous Han poet and statesman Jia Yi concluded his essay The Faults of Qin with what was to become the standard Confucian judgment of the reasons for Qin's collapse. Jia Yi's essay, admired as a masterpiece of rhetoric and reasoning, was copied into two great Han histories and has had a far-reaching influence on Chinese political thought as a classic illustration of Confucian theory. He explained the ultimate weakness of Qin as a result of its ruler's ruthless pursuit of power, the precise factor which had made it so powerful; for as Confucius had taught, the strength of a government ultimately is based on the support of the people and virtuous conduct of the ruler.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Crimes_of_Qin"

CAF, I'm LOL.

Btw, would you believe, they still send me notices of hot topics. And of course, appeals for money.
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: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #328 on: November 10, 2010, 08:56:22 PM »

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

That wouldn't be the Great CAF Crash, which happened before my time, but the Great CAF Purge, which I had the horror to witness.

The glorious rise to power of actual Catholic moderators in the EC sub-forum.
So glorious that they had to destroy the evidence of their ascent. Reminds me of someone.
Quote
During the preceding Zhou Dynasty (700 BCE-221 BCE), later rulers of the independent states of China by convention used the title “King” (Chinese: 王; pinyin: Wáng). Following his defeat of the last of the Warring States in 221 BC, King Zheng of Qin became de facto ruler of all China. To celebrate this achievement and consolidate his power base, King Zheng created a new title calling himself the First Sovereign Qin Emperor (Chinese: 秦始皇帝; pinyin: Qín Shǐ Huángdì; Wade–Giles: Ch'in Shih Huang-ti), often shortened to Qin Shi Huang (Chinese: 秦始皇; pinyin: Qín Shǐ Huáng; Wade–Giles: Ch'in Shih-Huang).

The character (始) means “first”.[5] The first emperor's heirs would then be successively called "Second Emperor", "Third Emperor" and so on down the generations.[6]
The characters "皇帝" (pinyin: Huángdì) come from the mythical Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors Era (Chinese: 三皇五帝; pinyin: Sān Huáng Wŭ Dì) (3rd Century BC), from which the two characters (皇帝) are extracted.[7] By adding such a title, Qín Shǐ Huángdì hoped to appropriate some of the previous Yellow Emperor's (黃帝) divine status and prestige.[8]
Additionally, the character "Huáng" (皇) literally means "shining" or "splendid" and was "most frequently used as an epithet of Heaven."

While the previous Warring States era was one of constant warfare, it was also considered the golden age of free thought.[38] Qin Shi Huang eliminated the Hundred Schools of Thought which incorporated Confucianism and other philosophies.[38][39] After the unification of China, with all other schools of thought banned, legalism became the endorsed ideology of the Qin dynasty.[28] Legalism was basically a system that required the people to follow the laws or be punished accordingly.

Beginning in 213 BC, at the instigation of Li Si and to avoid scholars' comparisons of his reign with the past, Qin Shi Huang also ordered for most previously existing books to be burned, with the exception of books on astrology, agriculture, medicine, divination, and the history of the Qin state.[40] This would also serve the purpose of furthering the already ongoing reformation of the writing system by removing examples of now-obsolete scripts.[26] Owning the Book of Songs or the Classic of History was to be punished especially severely. According to the later Records of the Grand Historian, the following year Qin Shi Huang had some 460 scholars buried alive for owning the forbidden books.[40][41] The emperor's oldest son Fusu criticised him for this act.[42] The emperor's own library still had copies of the forbidden books, but most of these were destroyed later when Xiang Yu burned the palaces of Xianyang in 206 BCE

According to the Records of the Grand Historian, after Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, unified China in 221 BC, his chancellor Li Si suggested suppressing the intellectual discourse to unify all thoughts and political opinions. This was justified by accusations that the intelligentsia sang false praise and raised dissent through libel.

Beginning in 213 BC, all classic works of the Hundred Schools of Thought — except those from Li Si's own school of philosophy known as legalism — were subject to book burning.

Qin Shi Huang burned the other histories out of fear that they undermined his legitimacy, and wrote his own history books. Afterwards, Li Si took his place in this area.

Li Si proposed that all histories in the imperial archives except those written by the Qin historians be burned; that the Classic of Poetry, the Classic of History, and works by scholars of different schools be handed in to the local authorities for burning; that anyone discussing these two particular books be executed; that those using ancient examples to satirize contemporary politics be put to death, along with their families; that authorities who failed to report cases that came to their attention were equally guilty; and that those who had not burned the listed books within 30 days of the decree were to be banished to the north as convicts working on building the Great Wall. The only books to be spared in the destruction were books on medicine, agriculture and prophecy
As some of them were also Confucius scholars Fusu counselled that, with the country newly unified, and enemies still not pacified, such a harsh measure imposed on those who respect Confucius would cause instability.[2] However, he was unable to change his father's mind, and instead was sent to guard the frontier in a de facto exile.

The quick fall of the Qin Dynasty was attributed to this proscription. Confucianism was revived in the Han Dynasty that followed, and became the official ideology of the Chinese imperial state. Many of the other schools had disappeared. Every Scholar that was buried, was allowed a last sentence before they were buried, most of them used it on praying or crying out to their families, except one scholar named Shung Jangi, who nearly escaped the torture, but was captured and killed before being buried alive.

Later in his life, Qin Shi Huang feared death and desperately sought the fabled elixir of life, which would supposedly allow him to live forever. He was obsessed with acquiring immortality and fell prey to many who offered him supposed elixirs.[45] He visited Zhifu Island three times in order to achieve immortality.[46] In one case he sent Xu Fu, a Zhifu islander, with ships carrying hundreds of young men and women in search of the mystical Penglai mountain.[33] They were sent to find Anqi Sheng, a 1,000-year-old magician whom Qin Shi Huang had supposedly met in his travels and who had invited him to seek him there.[47] These people never returned, because they knew that if they returned without the promised elixir, they would surely be executed. Legends claim that they reached Japan and colonized it.[45] It is also possible that the book burning, a purge on what could be seen as wasteful and useless literature, was, in part, an attempt to focus the minds of the Emperor's best scholars on the alchemical quest. Some of the executed scholars were those who had been unable to offer any evidence of their supernatural schemes. This may have been the ultimate means of testing their abilities: if any of them had magic powers, then they would surely come back to life when they were let out again.[26] Since the great emperor was afraid of death and, "evil spirits", he had workers build a series of tunnels and passage ways to each of his palaces (over 200 were owned by him), because these would keep him safe from the evil spirits, as he traveled unseen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars

Another one who claimed the mandate of heaven.
Ah, but he who laughs last laughs best.
Quote
In 211 BC a large meteor is said to have fallen in Dongjun (東郡) in the lower reaches of the Yellow River. On it an unknown person inscribed the words "The First Emperor will die and his land will be divided."[48] When the emperor heard of this, he sent an imperial secretary to investigate this prophecy. No one would confess to the deed, so all the people living nearby were put to death. The stone was then burned and pulverized.[15]

The emperor died during one of his tours of Eastern China, on September 10, 210 BC (Julian Calendar) at the palace in Shaqiu prefecture (沙丘平台), about two months away by road from the capital Xianyang.[20][20][49][50] Reportedly, he died of swallowing mercury (poison) pills, made by his court scientists and doctors, which contained too much mercury.[51] Ironically, these pills were meant to make Qin Shi Huang immortal.[51]

After the emperor's death Prime Minister Li Si, who accompanied him, became extremely worried that the news of his death could trigger a general uprising in the empire.[20] It would take two months for the government to reach the capital, and it would not be possible to stop the uprising. Li Si decided to hide the death of the emperor, and return to Xianyang.[20] Most of the imperial entourage accompanying the emperor was left ignorant of the emperor's death; only a younger son, Ying Huhai, who was traveling with his father, the eunuch Zhao Gao, Li Si, and five or six favorite eunuchs knew of the death.[20] Li Si also ordered that two carts containing rotten fish be carried immediately before and after the wagon of the emperor. The idea behind this was to prevent people from noticing the foul smell emanating from the wagon of the emperor, where his body was starting to decompose severely as it was summertime.[20] They also pulled down the shade so no one could see his face, changed his clothes daily, brought food and when he had to have important conversations they would act as if he wanted to send them a message.
Eventually, after about two months, Li Si and the imperial court reached Xianyang, where the news of the death of the emperor was announced.[20] Qin Shi Huang did not like to talk about his own death and he had never written a will. After his death, the eldest son Fusu would normally become the next emperor.[52]

Li Si and the chief eunuch Zhao Gao conspired to kill Fusu because Fusu's favorite general was Meng Tian, whom they disliked[52] and feared; Meng Tian's brother, a senior minister, had once punished Zhao Gao.[53] They believed that if Fusu was enthroned, they would lose their power.[52] Li Si and Zhao Gao forged a letter from Qin Shi Huang saying that both Fusu and General Meng must commit suicide.[52] The plan worked, and the younger son Huhai became the Second Emperor, later known as Qin Er Shi or "Second Generation Qin."[20]

Qin Er Shi, however, was not as capable as his father. Revolts quickly erupted. His reign was a time of extreme civil unrest, and everything built by the First Emperor crumbled away within a short period

In traditional Chinese historiography, the First Emperor of the Chinese unified states was almost always portrayed as a brutal tyrant who had obsessive fear of assassination. Ideological prejudices against the Legalist State of Qin were established as early as 266 BC, when Confucian philosopher Xun Zi disparaged it. Later Confucian historians condemned the emperor who had burned the classics and buried Confucian scholars alive. They eventually compiled a list of the Ten Crimes of Qin to highlight his tyrannical actions.

The famous Han poet and statesman Jia Yi concluded his essay The Faults of Qin (過秦論), with what was to become the standard Confucian judgment of the reasons for Qin's collapse. Jia Yi's essay, admired as a masterpiece of rhetoric and reasoning, was copied into two great Han histories and has had a far-reaching influence on Chinese political thought as a classic illustration of Confucian theory.[60] He explained that the Qin disintegrated because it failed to display humanity and righteousness or to realise there is a difference between the power to attack and the power to consolidate.

Confucian historians condemned the emperor Qin Shi Huang in the Ten Crimes of Qin, a list that was compiled to highlight his tyrannical actions. The famous Han poet and statesman Jia Yi concluded his essay The Faults of Qin with what was to become the standard Confucian judgment of the reasons for Qin's collapse. Jia Yi's essay, admired as a masterpiece of rhetoric and reasoning, was copied into two great Han histories and has had a far-reaching influence on Chinese political thought as a classic illustration of Confucian theory. He explained the ultimate weakness of Qin as a result of its ruler's ruthless pursuit of power, the precise factor which had made it so powerful; for as Confucius had taught, the strength of a government ultimately is based on the support of the people and virtuous conduct of the ruler.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Crimes_of_Qin"

CAF, I'm LOL.

Btw, would you believe, they still send me notices of hot topics. And of course, appeals for money.
OOOOOOOkay
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 #329 on: November 10, 2010, 10:31:21 PM »


That wouldn't be the Great CAF Crash, which happened before my time, but the Great CAF Purge, which I had the horror to witness.

The Great CAF Crash occurred in June or July 2007, and the Great CAF Purge on 6 November 2007.

The first was attributed to major computer software problems and several months of archived messages were lost.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #330 on: November 11, 2010, 12:41:30 AM »

Changing the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The context is an address by Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964.


The below was written by Apotheoun, I think. Archives back to mid-April 2007 lost in the Great CAF Crash.

That wouldn't be the Great CAF Crash, which happened before my time, but the Great CAF Purge, which I had the horror to witness.

The glorious rise to power of actual Catholic moderators in the EC sub-forum.
So glorious that they had to destroy the evidence of their ascent. Reminds me of someone.
Quote
During the preceding Zhou Dynasty (700 BCE-221 BCE), later rulers of the independent states of China by convention used the title “King” (Chinese: 王; pinyin: Wáng). Following his defeat of the last of the Warring States in 221 BC, King Zheng of Qin became de facto ruler of all China. To celebrate this achievement and consolidate his power base, King Zheng created a new title calling himself the First Sovereign Qin Emperor (Chinese: 秦始皇帝; pinyin: Qín Shǐ Huángdì; Wade–Giles: Ch'in Shih Huang-ti), often shortened to Qin Shi Huang (Chinese: 秦始皇; pinyin: Qín Shǐ Huáng; Wade–Giles: Ch'in Shih-Huang).

The character (始) means “first”.[5] The first emperor's heirs would then be successively called "Second Emperor", "Third Emperor" and so on down the generations.[6]
The characters "皇帝" (pinyin: Huángdì) come from the mythical Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors Era (Chinese: 三皇五帝; pinyin: Sān Huáng Wŭ Dì) (3rd Century BC), from which the two characters (皇帝) are extracted.[7] By adding such a title, Qín Shǐ Huángdì hoped to appropriate some of the previous Yellow Emperor's (黃帝) divine status and prestige.[8]
Additionally, the character "Huáng" (皇) literally means "shining" or "splendid" and was "most frequently used as an epithet of Heaven."

While the previous Warring States era was one of constant warfare, it was also considered the golden age of free thought.[38] Qin Shi Huang eliminated the Hundred Schools of Thought which incorporated Confucianism and other philosophies.[38][39] After the unification of China, with all other schools of thought banned, legalism became the endorsed ideology of the Qin dynasty.[28] Legalism was basically a system that required the people to follow the laws or be punished accordingly.

Beginning in 213 BC, at the instigation of Li Si and to avoid scholars' comparisons of his reign with the past, Qin Shi Huang also ordered for most previously existing books to be burned, with the exception of books on astrology, agriculture, medicine, divination, and the history of the Qin state.[40] This would also serve the purpose of furthering the already ongoing reformation of the writing system by removing examples of now-obsolete scripts.[26] Owning the Book of Songs or the Classic of History was to be punished especially severely. According to the later Records of the Grand Historian, the following year Qin Shi Huang had some 460 scholars buried alive for owning the forbidden books.[40][41] The emperor's oldest son Fusu criticised him for this act.[42] The emperor's own library still had copies of the forbidden books, but most of these were destroyed later when Xiang Yu burned the palaces of Xianyang in 206 BCE

According to the Records of the Grand Historian, after Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, unified China in 221 BC, his chancellor Li Si suggested suppressing the intellectual discourse to unify all thoughts and political opinions. This was justified by accusations that the intelligentsia sang false praise and raised dissent through libel.

Beginning in 213 BC, all classic works of the Hundred Schools of Thought — except those from Li Si's own school of philosophy known as legalism — were subject to book burning.

Qin Shi Huang burned the other histories out of fear that they undermined his legitimacy, and wrote his own history books. Afterwards, Li Si took his place in this area.

Li Si proposed that all histories in the imperial archives except those written by the Qin historians be burned; that the Classic of Poetry, the Classic of History, and works by scholars of different schools be handed in to the local authorities for burning; that anyone discussing these two particular books be executed; that those using ancient examples to satirize contemporary politics be put to death, along with their families; that authorities who failed to report cases that came to their attention were equally guilty; and that those who had not burned the listed books within 30 days of the decree were to be banished to the north as convicts working on building the Great Wall. The only books to be spared in the destruction were books on medicine, agriculture and prophecy
As some of them were also Confucius scholars Fusu counselled that, with the country newly unified, and enemies still not pacified, such a harsh measure imposed on those who respect Confucius would cause instability.[2] However, he was unable to change his father's mind, and instead was sent to guard the frontier in a de facto exile.

The quick fall of the Qin Dynasty was attributed to this proscription. Confucianism was revived in the Han Dynasty that followed, and became the official ideology of the Chinese imperial state. Many of the other schools had disappeared. Every Scholar that was buried, was allowed a last sentence before they were buried, most of them used it on praying or crying out to their families, except one scholar named Shung Jangi, who nearly escaped the torture, but was captured and killed before being buried alive.

Later in his life, Qin Shi Huang feared death and desperately sought the fabled elixir of life, which would supposedly allow him to live forever. He was obsessed with acquiring immortality and fell prey to many who offered him supposed elixirs.[45] He visited Zhifu Island three times in order to achieve immortality.[46] In one case he sent Xu Fu, a Zhifu islander, with ships carrying hundreds of young men and women in search of the mystical Penglai mountain.[33] They were sent to find Anqi Sheng, a 1,000-year-old magician whom Qin Shi Huang had supposedly met in his travels and who had invited him to seek him there.[47] These people never returned, because they knew that if they returned without the promised elixir, they would surely be executed. Legends claim that they reached Japan and colonized it.[45] It is also possible that the book burning, a purge on what could be seen as wasteful and useless literature, was, in part, an attempt to focus the minds of the Emperor's best scholars on the alchemical quest. Some of the executed scholars were those who had been unable to offer any evidence of their supernatural schemes. This may have been the ultimate means of testing their abilities: if any of them had magic powers, then they would surely come back to life when they were let out again.[26] Since the great emperor was afraid of death and, "evil spirits", he had workers build a series of tunnels and passage ways to each of his palaces (over 200 were owned by him), because these would keep him safe from the evil spirits, as he traveled unseen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars

Another one who claimed the mandate of heaven.
Ah, but he who laughs last laughs best.
Quote
In 211 BC a large meteor is said to have fallen in Dongjun (東郡) in the lower reaches of the Yellow River. On it an unknown person inscribed the words "The First Emperor will die and his land will be divided."[48] When the emperor heard of this, he sent an imperial secretary to investigate this prophecy. No one would confess to the deed, so all the people living nearby were put to death. The stone was then burned and pulverized.[15]

The emperor died during one of his tours of Eastern China, on September 10, 210 BC (Julian Calendar) at the palace in Shaqiu prefecture (沙丘平台), about two months away by road from the capital Xianyang.[20][20][49][50] Reportedly, he died of swallowing mercury (poison) pills, made by his court scientists and doctors, which contained too much mercury.[51] Ironically, these pills were meant to make Qin Shi Huang immortal.[51]

After the emperor's death Prime Minister Li Si, who accompanied him, became extremely worried that the news of his death could trigger a general uprising in the empire.[20] It would take two months for the government to reach the capital, and it would not be possible to stop the uprising. Li Si decided to hide the death of the emperor, and return to Xianyang.[20] Most of the imperial entourage accompanying the emperor was left ignorant of the emperor's death; only a younger son, Ying Huhai, who was traveling with his father, the eunuch Zhao Gao, Li Si, and five or six favorite eunuchs knew of the death.[20] Li Si also ordered that two carts containing rotten fish be carried immediately before and after the wagon of the emperor. The idea behind this was to prevent people from noticing the foul smell emanating from the wagon of the emperor, where his body was starting to decompose severely as it was summertime.[20] They also pulled down the shade so no one could see his face, changed his clothes daily, brought food and when he had to have important conversations they would act as if he wanted to send them a message.
Eventually, after about two months, Li Si and the imperial court reached Xianyang, where the news of the death of the emperor was announced.[20] Qin Shi Huang did not like to talk about his own death and he had never written a will. After his death, the eldest son Fusu would normally become the next emperor.[52]

Li Si and the chief eunuch Zhao Gao conspired to kill Fusu because Fusu's favorite general was Meng Tian, whom they disliked[52] and feared; Meng Tian's brother, a senior minister, had once punished Zhao Gao.[53] They believed that if Fusu was enthroned, they would lose their power.[52] Li Si and Zhao Gao forged a letter from Qin Shi Huang saying that both Fusu and General Meng must commit suicide.[52] The plan worked, and the younger son Huhai became the Second Emperor, later known as Qin Er Shi or "Second Generation Qin."[20]

Qin Er Shi, however, was not as capable as his father. Revolts quickly erupted. His reign was a time of extreme civil unrest, and everything built by the First Emperor crumbled away within a short period

In traditional Chinese historiography, the First Emperor of the Chinese unified states was almost always portrayed as a brutal tyrant who had obsessive fear of assassination. Ideological prejudices against the Legalist State of Qin were established as early as 266 BC, when Confucian philosopher Xun Zi disparaged it. Later Confucian historians condemned the emperor who had burned the classics and buried Confucian scholars alive. They eventually compiled a list of the Ten Crimes of Qin to highlight his tyrannical actions.

The famous Han poet and statesman Jia Yi concluded his essay The Faults of Qin (過秦論), with what was to become the standard Confucian judgment of the reasons for Qin's collapse. Jia Yi's essay, admired as a masterpiece of rhetoric and reasoning, was copied into two great Han histories and has had a far-reaching influence on Chinese political thought as a classic illustration of Confucian theory.[60] He explained that the Qin disintegrated because it failed to display humanity and righteousness or to realise there is a difference between the power to attack and the power to consolidate.

Confucian historians condemned the emperor Qin Shi Huang in the Ten Crimes of Qin, a list that was compiled to highlight his tyrannical actions. The famous Han poet and statesman Jia Yi concluded his essay The Faults of Qin with what was to become the standard Confucian judgment of the reasons for Qin's collapse. Jia Yi's essay, admired as a masterpiece of rhetoric and reasoning, was copied into two great Han histories and has had a far-reaching influence on Chinese political thought as a classic illustration of Confucian theory. He explained the ultimate weakness of Qin as a result of its ruler's ruthless pursuit of power, the precise factor which had made it so powerful; for as Confucius had taught, the strength of a government ultimately is based on the support of the people and virtuous conduct of the ruler.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Crimes_of_Qin"

CAF, I'm LOL.

Well, I haven't heard of any CAF moderators falling ill from mercury poisoning, but with these new type light bulbs (which contain mercury)  replacing the older incandescent ones, who knows?   
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #331 on: November 11, 2010, 10:41:20 AM »

The concept of sexual pleasure in the Catholic moral tradition By Shaji George Kochuthara
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZFbjyIn6j4oC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=Clement+Alexandria+outrage+nature&source=bl&ots=vD8iy14csh&sig=_9D3f87h0vxqrXdsGGLUu9RYm0A&hl=en&ei=X0XbTIrLNtyrnAez2p0W&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Clement%20Alexandria%20outrage%20nature&f=false
shows that many (but not all, there were exceptions) of those Fathers that HV claims as its basis basically view marriage like animal husbandry, an ironic mix as they both condemn those who enjoy intercourse as animals while as the same time calling us to imitate animals in breeding only during estris, demanding that the image and likeness of God overcome his nature and imitate angels while demanding that "we should take nature as our instructor," i.e. natural law (the book also shows that these Fathers adopted pagan Stoicism as the basis of their views). St. Clement says "a man who marries for the sake of begeting children [which he states is the only reason to marry] must practice continence so that it is not desire that he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love [he insists that there's an opposition of desire and love, based on Stoicism], so that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will." In other words, marital embrace should resemble an artifical insemination, ironic as I am sure that St. Clement would join HV in condemning that, as both are inconsistent in the same way.

The book also deals with the issue of the context that the Fathers were writing in, on the one hand Gnostics who denied the created world and marriage-hence the insistence on natural law in the created order-and on the other hand Gnostics of the Corinth variety who concluded that carnal immorality was not real as the body and creation had no worth.  On this the classic work is "The body and society: men, women, and sexual renunciation in early Christianity,"  By Peter Robert Lamont Brown
http://books.google.com/books?id=gIDeAhZG9a4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Brown+Body+and+society&hl=en&ei=qv3bTM_MIcemnAfchtQW&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

But to return to St. Clement:
Quote
Against Embellishing the Body
It is not, then, the aspect of the outward man, but the soul that is to be decorated with the ornament of goodness; we may say also the flesh with the adornment of temperance. But those women who beautify the outside, are unawares all waste in the inner depths, as is the case with the ornaments of the Egyptians; among whom temples with their porticos and vestibules are carefully constructed, and groves and sacred fields adjoining; the halls are surrounded with many pillars; and the walls gleam with foreign stones, and there is no want of artistic painting; and the temples gleam with gold, and silver, and amber, and glitter with parti-coloured gems from India and Ethiopia; and the shrines are veiled with gold-embroidered hangings.

But if you enter the penetralia of the enclosure, and, in haste to behold something better, seek the image that is the inhabitant of the temple, and if any priest of those that offer sacrifice there, looking gave, and singing a pæan in the Egyptian tongue, remove a little of the veil to show the god, he will give you a hearty laugh at the object of worship. For the deity that is sought, to whom you have rushed, will not be found within, but a cat, or a crocodile, or a serpent of the country, or some such beast unworthy of the temple, but quite worthy of a den, a hole, or the dirt. The god of the Egyptians appears a beast rolling on a purple couch.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02093.htm
It is odd that St. Clement objects to this (as he should), but then places the bestial practice of estris breeding in the holy of holies of the Temple of Christian marriage.
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
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,220



« Reply #332 on: November 20, 2010, 10:38:39 PM »

Given the recent lifting on the allowance of condoms in the RCC, it appears that Fr. Ambrose and Isa's thesis about the RCC's route to Birth Control has some proof to it. Any thoughts?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #333 on: November 21, 2010, 08:20:34 PM »

The RCC has not changed its position on birth control or on the use of condoms.  I did think so, at first, but when I actually read what the Pope actually said I realized it's not.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #334 on: November 21, 2010, 08:33:15 PM »

The RCC has not changed its position on birth control or on the use of condoms.  I did think so, at first, but when I actually read what the Pope actually said I realized it's not.

The Guardian reports that the Vatican has now issued a "Clarification" on what the Pope wants to say.

Is anybody able to supply a copy?

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #335 on: December 16, 2010, 11:58:10 AM »

Just came across this interesting observation:
Quote
Lastly, had Onan used the Rhythm Method to prevent giving his brother an heir, would God have killed him? If not, then I guess there wouldn't be any reason to include "...lest he should give seed to his brother." I guess that it would have been fine since he wouldn't have interrupted the conjucal act. Would this be accurate in your estimation
and this interesting reply
Quote
Dude, seriously. The Rhythm method is not a sexual act. Masturbation is the use of the genitals in a sexual act. It seems that you are not willing to listen to reason. Maybe someone else can explain it better than I. It is clear to me that one involves the use of sexual organs, the other does not. No semantics involved here. This whole post is examining a Biblical passage. The Podcast was more oriented towards Catholics, but I also covered the natural law in it.
and this
Quote
If masturbation is not considered a sexual act, then what type of act is it? Would mutual masturbation be considered a sexual act? What about homosexual acts, are they not...well...sexual? What is meant by the term "sexual immorality"? If lust is not to fall within the category of sexual immorality, then what type of act is it?
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/08/genesis-38-and-sin-of-onan.html

On the last I think the Lord was clear that lust in the heart is a sexual act.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 12:06:59 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #336 on: February 20, 2011, 11:14:14 PM »

I was just rereading this
Quote
Sexual relations in marriage provide a safe and calm harbor to tame and redirect these unruly passions and desires. Sexual relations are also designed to serve as marital glue. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall become one flesh." The physical union of intercourse is designed to strengthen the marital bond by both enacting a very real physical unity and by producing a child, who is a creation not from only husband or wife alone, buy from both the husband and wife together
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/TrenhamSexuality.php
I am not sure that the Fathers saw children really as "a creation not from only  the huband or wife alone" and thus the union into the one flesh as Fr. Trenham seems to imply, as most of the Fathers followed Greek science in thiniking that children were from humunculi from the father, the mother a mere incubator.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 11:16:06 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #337 on: February 21, 2011, 12:05:37 AM »

I was just rereading this
Quote
Sexual relations in marriage provide a safe and calm harbor to tame and redirect these unruly passions and desires. Sexual relations are also designed to serve as marital glue. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall become one flesh." The physical union of intercourse is designed to strengthen the marital bond by both enacting a very real physical unity and by producing a child, who is a creation not from only husband or wife alone, buy from both the husband and wife together
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/TrenhamSexuality.php
I am not sure that the Fathers saw children really as "a creation not from only  the huband or wife alone" and thus the union into the one flesh as Fr. Trenham seems to imply, as most of the Fathers followed Greek science in thiniking that children were from humunculi from the father, the mother a mere incubator.
If that was classical thought then where did the belief that it was the woman who determined the gender of the child (e.g. King Henry VIII) come from? If the entire personhood of the child came from the father this would not be the case.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #338 on: February 21, 2011, 02:44:11 AM »

Old post, but I need to address this:

Religion Saves: And Nine Other Misconceptions By Mark Driscoll
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ny4cHkl9NZsC&pg=PA26&dq=Clement+Alexandria+Onan&hl=en&ei=9QDbTLrbH8St8AbLlsj6CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#
deals with Onan (pointing out that using it as the prooftext against masturbation is liking using as a prooftext for it Ecclesiasticus 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might."), and St. Clement demonstrating that ABC/NFP wasn't a distinction these Fathers recognized, and the pagan Stoic thinking (the ancestor of HV's natural law basis).

For an evangelical Protestant, it is written quite well.  The chapter on contraceoption starts with an anecdote of a "population bomb" alarmist confronting Pastor Driscoll over his five children.

He also touches on some more sobering things: the role of constant pregnancy on mother Yates drowing their children.

I'm not crazy about sterilization, although I can't quite articulate why I'm against it. Driscoll gives an example I can't argue against, however: the couple had gone through so many miscarriages (18) that it was sucking the life right out of them, so the husband had a vasectomy.

I'm also looking at this, "Eastern Orthodoxy and Contraception: Contemporary Vs. Traditional Views:Teaching on contraception among Orthodox Churches"
http://www.hli.org/index.php/contraception/138?task=view
My girlfriend goes to Mark Driscoll's Church. I used to go all the time until I got sick of him and his associates ripping on apostolic Christianity. Three of my friends from there converted to Orthodoxy (one reverted, sigh), the senior pastor of the particular Mars Hill Campus my girlfriend goes to basically called me and them out in a sermon over "sacramentalism". This church aggravates me to no end, and while there are many good people there who love God and whose lives are improved, on the whole, this church is still a reflector of how pernicious and evil the Protestant heresy is.

Mark thinks that it is okay for married men to masturbate while fantasizing about their wives or looking at nude pictures of their wives (CFR Porn Again Christian). He's hardly someone whose sexual theology should be held up as exemplary.

Not to mention he's a heretic of the worst sort. He's a good man in many ways, and a very able preacher - but seriously, his theology of the body is sorely lacking. If you want to quote someone who explain the issue - find one of the Fathers we share in common who holds your position.

Oh wait.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 02:46:07 AM by WetCatechumen » Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #339 on: February 23, 2011, 05:51:14 AM »

Old post, but I need to address this:

Religion Saves: And Nine Other Misconceptions By Mark Driscoll
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ny4cHkl9NZsC&pg=PA26&dq=Clement+Alexandria+Onan&hl=en&ei=9QDbTLrbH8St8AbLlsj6CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#
deals with Onan (pointing out that using it as the prooftext against masturbation is liking using as a prooftext for it Ecclesiasticus 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might."), and St. Clement demonstrating that ABC/NFP wasn't a distinction these Fathers recognized, and the pagan Stoic thinking (the ancestor of HV's natural law basis).

For an evangelical Protestant, it is written quite well.  The chapter on contraceoption starts with an anecdote of a "population bomb" alarmist confronting Pastor Driscoll over his five children.

He also touches on some more sobering things: the role of constant pregnancy on mother Yates drowing their children.

I'm not crazy about sterilization, although I can't quite articulate why I'm against it. Driscoll gives an example I can't argue against, however: the couple had gone through so many miscarriages (18) that it was sucking the life right out of them, so the husband had a vasectomy.

I'm also looking at this, "Eastern Orthodoxy and Contraception: Contemporary Vs. Traditional Views:Teaching on contraception among Orthodox Churches"
http://www.hli.org/index.php/contraception/138?task=view
My girlfriend goes to Mark Driscoll's Church. I used to go all the time until I got sick of him and his associates ripping on apostolic Christianity. Three of my friends from there converted to Orthodoxy (one reverted, sigh), the senior pastor of the particular Mars Hill Campus my girlfriend goes to basically called me and them out in a sermon over "sacramentalism". This church aggravates me to no end, and while there are many good people there who love God and whose lives are improved, on the whole, this church is still a reflector of how pernicious and evil the Protestant heresy is.

Mark thinks that it is okay for married men to masturbate while fantasizing about their wives or looking at nude pictures of their wives (CFR Porn Again Christian). He's hardly someone whose sexual theology should be held up as exemplary.

Not to mention he's a heretic of the worst sort. He's a good man in many ways, and a very able preacher - but seriously, his theology of the body is sorely lacking. If you want to quote someone who explain the issue - find one of the Fathers we share in common who holds your position.

Oh wait.
LOL. Is that some allusion to the Vatican's claim of upholding the Fathers' position in Humanae Vitae?

As demonstrated numberous times before, it does not.  The Fathers that its apologistts (since your supreme pontiff dared not quote any Fathers in it on his position) quote include the rhythm method as contraception and condemn it. As has been quoted endlessly, e.g. St. 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).” And “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.”  IOW, the only moral use of the rhythm method for St. Clement would be to ascertain the fertile period and then, and ONLY THEN, have intercourse. To do so at any other time (including possibly fertile times:that would be taking chances with less than 100% “open to life”), would be the “contraceptive mentality” “outrag[ing] nature.”

You can quote St. Clement as one of the Fathers we share in common who holds your position. You cannot, however, quote one of the Fathers we share in common who holds HV's position.

As for "theology of the body," I'm aware that is becoming another buzz word in the Vatican, among "contraceptive mentality" etc. It's not a category the Fathers recognized.  Not that it cannot be developed as such, but I can hardly blame preacher Mark for not having developed one when the Fathers didn't.

Is this what you are talking about?:
Quote
Question: Sometimes when I go out of town on business, my wife slips nude photos of herself into my briefcase so that while I’m on the road I can call her to have phone sex while looking at her photos as we mutually masturbate. This really helps reduce my temptations on the road and is the best thing we can think of doing when we cannot be together. Is this okay? Or, could we privately iChat online and see one another and mutually masturbate that way when we are separated?

Answer: Nude images of your wife are redeemed images and providing she is agreeable to this arrangement I would encourage you to thank God for the freedom your wife enjoys with you. Practically, I would urge you to not allow any other people to see your wife to ensure a protection of her. Also, since you are considering using technology you need to be wise so that you do not end up as an oddity on the worldwide web. Since the purpose of sexual activity is oneness, your option is both creative and permissible because you are being as intimate as you can be when distance separates you.
http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/ch5.php#2
But let's be honest: would you approve of said married couple "mutually masterbating" in person? I.e. the person of the spouse in person, and not a photo?

As for teaching heresy, what do you think the Orthodox denounce the Vatican for?

One thing that Preacher Mark and I (I won't assUme you) have in common is that we know that there is not a little man "homunculus" in semen, something that St. Clement and many (all of the ancient?) Fathers believed. According to modern embryology, there were wrong on this point, and thing that flowed/was based on it.

Oh, btw, examplia gratia a Father who holds our position, St. John Chrysostom.  He, in contrast to St. Clement, holds nothing sinful in infertile couples making love although they cannot make babies.
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
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #340 on: February 23, 2011, 01:17:11 PM »

This thread is pure idiocy.
It presupposes that marriage is a solely divine institution and that the State doesn't exist.
Marriage and procreation are for the glory of the State, the State that has more children has more soldiers, has more entrepeneurs, has more priests, so thus is successful.
Once you transgress utilitarian and individualist morality(moralitat) and progress to ethics (sittlichkeit), you see clearly what marriage is, that it is that it is an association of two persons, for the procreation of persons.

These minutae about a condom are senseless. If you want to live as an apartheid, deny the existence of society continue using your condoms and other methods. Once, you feel the need to transcend your internal boundaries and create a society, you marry and make children.
I hate how bookish that sounds, what that is the way it is.
Listen to Fr.Dmytro Sidor in this video, how he talks to the young girls: Go, find yourselves husbands, get married, and make children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LznUohGlY50&feature=player_embedded

This below will die out soon, but what will be eternal?

LadyGaga is the ideal woman. She wears interesting outfits, Vulgar and unnecessary comment removed, she rules men, worship your idols if you so please.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 02:15:11 PM by Schultz » Logged
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #341 on: February 23, 2011, 01:25:08 PM »

She rejects Humanae Vitae, look at how successful she is! Everyone adores her!
Provocative image removed
This is what, I Satan will give to you, if you masturbate on your keyboards everyday!
A digital graven image!
But their idols have eyes, but do not see,
have ears but do not hear,
have mouths but do not talk,
have noses, but do not smell,
have fingers, which do not touch.
Provocative image removed
Glory be unto you, o Goddess of anticonception, for by your glorious breasts, mankind is saved!
 Synleszka,

You know better by now than to post such images.  Your point (which is a good one, mind you) is easily made without resorting to such vulgar images and words.  I care not if such things do not offend your European sensibilities; it is not only unnecessary but also in bad taste to post such things on a Christian message board.  Because of what I can only describe as deliberate provocation and flaunting of rules you know well by now, you are hereby put directly on post moderation for 30 days.  If you think this is unfair, please PM Fr. George.

-Schultz.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 02:16:19 PM by Schultz » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #342 on: February 23, 2011, 01:36:53 PM »

This thread is pure idiocy.

You got that right, but then you went ahead and made it even stupider.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 01:47:00 PM by Iconodule » 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.
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


« Reply #343 on: February 23, 2011, 01:45:53 PM »

I agree. Those almost completely nude pics shouldn't be posted on a Christian forum.

This thread is pure idiocy.

You got that right, but that you went ahead and made it even stupider.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #344 on: February 24, 2011, 04:21:08 AM »

Old post, but I need to address this:

Religion Saves: And Nine Other Misconceptions By Mark Driscoll
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ny4cHkl9NZsC&pg=PA26&dq=Clement+Alexandria+Onan&hl=en&ei=9QDbTLrbH8St8AbLlsj6CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#
deals with Onan (pointing out that using it as the prooftext against masturbation is liking using as a prooftext for it Ecclesiasticus 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might."), and St. Clement demonstrating that ABC/NFP wasn't a distinction these Fathers recognized, and the pagan Stoic thinking (the ancestor of HV's natural law basis).

For an evangelical Protestant, it is written quite well.  The chapter on contraceoption starts with an anecdote of a "population bomb" alarmist confronting Pastor Driscoll over his five children.

He also touches on some more sobering things: the role of constant pregnancy on mother Yates drowing their children.

I'm not crazy about sterilization, although I can't quite articulate why I'm against it. Driscoll gives an example I can't argue against, however: the couple had gone through so many miscarriages (18) that it was sucking the life right out of them, so the husband had a vasectomy.

I'm also looking at this, "Eastern Orthodoxy and Contraception: Contemporary Vs. Traditional Views:Teaching on contraception among Orthodox Churches"
http://www.hli.org/index.php/contraception/138?task=view
My girlfriend goes to Mark Driscoll's Church. I used to go all the time until I got sick of him and his associates ripping on apostolic Christianity. Three of my friends from there converted to Orthodoxy (one reverted, sigh), the senior pastor of the particular Mars Hill Campus my girlfriend goes to basically called me and them out in a sermon over "sacramentalism". This church aggravates me to no end, and while there are many good people there who love God and whose lives are improved, on the whole, this church is still a reflector of how pernicious and evil the Protestant heresy is.

Mark thinks that it is okay for married men to masturbate while fantasizing about their wives or looking at nude pictures of their wives (CFR Porn Again Christian). He's hardly someone whose sexual theology should be held up as exemplary.

Not to mention he's a heretic of the worst sort. He's a good man in many ways, and a very able preacher - but seriously, his theology of the body is sorely lacking. If you want to quote someone who explain the issue - find one of the Fathers we share in common who holds your position.

Oh wait.
LOL. Is that some allusion to the Vatican's claim of upholding the Fathers' position in Humanae Vitae?

As demonstrated numberous times before, it does not.  The Fathers that its apologistts (since your supreme pontiff dared not quote any Fathers in it on his position) quote include the rhythm method as contraception and condemn it. As has been quoted endlessly, e.g. St. 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).” And “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.”  IOW, the only moral use of the rhythm method for St. Clement would be to ascertain the fertile period and then, and ONLY THEN, have intercourse. To do so at any other time (including possibly fertile times:that would be taking chances with less than 100% “open to life”), would be the “contraceptive mentality” “outrag[ing] nature.”

You can quote St. Clement as one of the Fathers we share in common who holds your position. You cannot, however, quote one of the Fathers we share in common who holds HV's position.

As for "theology of the body," I'm aware that is becoming another buzz word in the Vatican, among "contraceptive mentality" etc. It's not a category the Fathers recognized.  Not that it cannot be developed as such, but I can hardly blame preacher Mark for not having developed one when the Fathers didn't.

Is this what you are talking about?:
Quote
Question: Sometimes when I go out of town on business, my wife slips nude photos of herself into my briefcase so that while I’m on the road I can call her to have phone sex while looking at her photos as we mutually masturbate. This really helps reduce my temptations on the road and is the best thing we can think of doing when we cannot be together. Is this okay? Or, could we privately iChat online and see one another and mutually masturbate that way when we are separated?

Answer: Nude images of your wife are redeemed images and providing she is agreeable to this arrangement I would encourage you to thank God for the freedom your wife enjoys with you. Practically, I would urge you to not allow any other people to see your wife to ensure a protection of her. Also, since you are considering using technology you need to be wise so that you do not end up as an oddity on the worldwide web. Since the purpose of sexual activity is oneness, your option is both creative and permissible because you are being as intimate as you can be when distance separates you.
http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/ch5.php#2
But let's be honest: would you approve of said married couple "mutually masterbating" in person? I.e. the person of the spouse in person, and not a photo?

As for teaching heresy, what do you think the Orthodox denounce the Vatican for?

One thing that Preacher Mark and I (I won't assUme you) have in common is that we know that there is not a little man "homunculus" in semen, something that St. Clement and many (all of the ancient?) Fathers believed. According to modern embryology, there were wrong on this point, and thing that flowed/was based on it.

Oh, btw, examplia gratia a Father who holds our position, St. John Chrysostom.  He, in contrast to St. Clement, holds nothing sinful in infertile couples making love although they cannot make babies.
Sorry I must have missed it in there.

Which Father ever said that contraception, either drugs of sterility like the birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods were acceptable means of spacing children?
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #345 on: February 27, 2011, 08:31:01 PM »

Old post, but I need to address this:

Religion Saves: And Nine Other Misconceptions By Mark Driscoll
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ny4cHkl9NZsC&pg=PA26&dq=Clement+Alexandria+Onan&hl=en&ei=9QDbTLrbH8St8AbLlsj6CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#
deals with Onan (pointing out that using it as the prooftext against masturbation is liking using as a prooftext for it Ecclesiasticus 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might."), and St. Clement demonstrating that ABC/NFP wasn't a distinction these Fathers recognized, and the pagan Stoic thinking (the ancestor of HV's natural law basis).

For an evangelical Protestant, it is written quite well.  The chapter on contraceoption starts with an anecdote of a "population bomb" alarmist confronting Pastor Driscoll over his five children.

He also touches on some more sobering things: the role of constant pregnancy on mother Yates drowing their children.

I'm not crazy about sterilization, although I can't quite articulate why I'm against it. Driscoll gives an example I can't argue against, however: the couple had gone through so many miscarriages (18) that it was sucking the life right out of them, so the husband had a vasectomy.

I'm also looking at this, "Eastern Orthodoxy and Contraception: Contemporary Vs. Traditional Views:Teaching on contraception among Orthodox Churches"
http://www.hli.org/index.php/contraception/138?task=view
My girlfriend goes to Mark Driscoll's Church. I used to go all the time until I got sick of him and his associates ripping on apostolic Christianity. Three of my friends from there converted to Orthodoxy (one reverted, sigh), the senior pastor of the particular Mars Hill Campus my girlfriend goes to basically called me and them out in a sermon over "sacramentalism". This church aggravates me to no end, and while there are many good people there who love God and whose lives are improved, on the whole, this church is still a reflector of how pernicious and evil the Protestant heresy is.

Mark thinks that it is okay for married men to masturbate while fantasizing about their wives or looking at nude pictures of their wives (CFR Porn Again Christian). He's hardly someone whose sexual theology should be held up as exemplary.

Not to mention he's a heretic of the worst sort. He's a good man in many ways, and a very able preacher - but seriously, his theology of the body is sorely lacking. If you want to quote someone who explain the issue - find one of the Fathers we share in common who holds your position.

Oh wait.
LOL. Is that some allusion to the Vatican's claim of upholding the Fathers' position in Humanae Vitae?

As demonstrated numberous times before, it does not.  The Fathers that its apologistts (since your supreme pontiff dared not quote any Fathers in it on his position) quote include the rhythm method as contraception and condemn it. As has been quoted endlessly, e.g. St. 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).” And “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.”  IOW, the only moral use of the rhythm method for St. Clement would be to ascertain the fertile period and then, and ONLY THEN, have intercourse. To do so at any other time (including possibly fertile times:that would be taking chances with less than 100% “open to life”), would be the “contraceptive mentality” “outrag[ing] nature.”

You can quote St. Clement as one of the Fathers we share in common who holds your position. You cannot, however, quote one of the Fathers we share in common who holds HV's position.

As for "theology of the body," I'm aware that is becoming another buzz word in the Vatican, among "contraceptive mentality" etc. It's not a category the Fathers recognized.  Not that it cannot be developed as such, but I can hardly blame preacher Mark for not having developed one when the Fathers didn't.

Is this what you are talking about?:
Quote
Question: Sometimes when I go out of town on business, my wife slips nude photos of herself into my briefcase so that while I’m on the road I can call her to have phone sex while looking at her photos as we mutually masturbate. This really helps reduce my temptations on the road and is the best thing we can think of doing when we cannot be together. Is this okay? Or, could we privately iChat online and see one another and mutually masturbate that way when we are separated?

Answer: Nude images of your wife are redeemed images and providing she is agreeable to this arrangement I would encourage you to thank God for the freedom your wife enjoys with you. Practically, I would urge you to not allow any other people to see your wife to ensure a protection of her. Also, since you are considering using technology you need to be wise so that you do not end up as an oddity on the worldwide web. Since the purpose of sexual activity is oneness, your option is both creative and permissible because you are being as intimate as you can be when distance separates you.
http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/ch5.php#2
But let's be honest: would you approve of said married couple "mutually masterbating" in person? I.e. the person of the spouse in person, and not a photo?

As for teaching heresy, what do you think the Orthodox denounce the Vatican for?

One thing that Preacher Mark and I (I won't assUme you) have in common is that we know that there is not a little man "homunculus" in semen, something that St. Clement and many (all of the ancient?) Fathers believed. According to modern embryology, there were wrong on this point, and thing that flowed/was based on it.

Oh, btw, examplia gratia a Father who holds our position, St. John Chrysostom.  He, in contrast to St. Clement, holds nothing sinful in infertile couples making love although they cannot make babies.
Sorry I must have missed it in there.

Which Father ever said that contraception, either drugs of sterility like the birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods were acceptable means of spacing children?
The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.
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
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #346 on: February 27, 2011, 08:40:04 PM »

Sorry to interject, but I had quite a good laugh at the "pull out method" that has been mentioned.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #347 on: February 28, 2011, 03:02:52 AM »

The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of artificial birth control.

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that contraception is ever okay is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers universally condemned contraception.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #348 on: February 28, 2011, 03:14:27 AM »

The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of artificial birth control.

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that contraception is ever okay is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers universally condemned contraception.

We can ask:  name one Father who approved the use of NFP?  The answer is simple: NOT one!

The Fathers condemned all marital sex which

1. Was not intended to create a child

2.  Was not able to create a child.

They saw much of the sexual relationships which we accept today as an abomination before the Lord, such as sex when a woman is past the age of child bearing or when a couple is infertile.  The Church no longer accepts these teachings of the Church Fathers.

It is because the teaching of Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae" is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers that we do not find even one quote from them in the Pope's statement.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2011, 03:21:55 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #349 on: February 28, 2011, 07:28:29 AM »

The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of artificial birth control.

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that contraception is ever okay is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers universally condemned contraception.
and those who did condemned as well what you evidently approve of and call "Natural Family Planning," as Father Ambrose and I have pointed out.

"Artificial birth control" contrasted with "Natural Family Planning" is a distinction no Father makes. It is an invention of the Vatican, the Roman Penitentiary and Humanae Vitae.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of "natural family planning" while condemning "artificial birth control."

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that is ever okay to engage in sex without the intent of having children (not just being "open to life," but trying to conceive with every intercourse) if they condemned contraception is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers who universally condemned contraction, universally condemned the rhythm method as well.
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
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: 37,124



« Reply #350 on: February 28, 2011, 07:32:38 AM »

The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of artificial birth control.

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that contraception is ever okay is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers universally condemned contraception.

We can ask:  name one Father who approved the use of NFP?  The answer is simple: NOT one!

The Fathers condemned all marital sex which

1. Was not intended to create a child

2.  Was not able to create a child.

They saw much of the sexual relationships which we accept today as an abomination before the Lord, such as sex when a woman is past the age of child bearing or when a couple is infertile.  The Church no longer accepts these teachings of the Church Fathers.

It is because the teaching of Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae" is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers that we do not find even one quote from them in the Pope's statement.
There were dissenting Fathers, e.g. St. John Chrysostom who explicitely approves of the sexual intercourse of barren couples.  Of course, these Fathers were/are right, and the Church accepts the teachings of these Church Fathers.  But then again, St. John was par excellence a pastor, and so out of step with a dogmatic statement like HV (but in step with the statements of the Russian Synod).
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #351 on: February 28, 2011, 08:03:15 AM »

The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of artificial birth control.

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that contraception is ever okay is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers universally condemned contraception.

We can ask:  name one Father who approved the use of NFP?  The answer is simple: NOT one!

The Fathers condemned all marital sex which

1. Was not intended to create a child

2.  Was not able to create a child.

They saw much of the sexual relationships which we accept today as an abomination before the Lord, such as sex when a woman is past the age of child bearing or when a couple is infertile.  The Church no longer accepts these teachings of the Church Fathers.

It is because the teaching of Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae" is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers that we do not find even one quote from them in the Pope's statement.
There were dissenting Fathers, e.g. St. John Chrysostom who explicitely approves of the sexual intercourse of barren couples.  Of course, these Fathers were/are right, and the Church accepts the teachings of these Church Fathers.  But then again, St. John was par excellence a pastor, and so out of step with a dogmatic statement like HV (but in step with the statements of the Russian Synod).

Saint John Chrysostom is the extraordinary exception who allows for the use of sex as a simply unitive act divorced from procreation and, as far as I know, the unique exception.  Although the paucity of writings on this topic makes it impossible to speak of a wide consensus among the Holy Fathers, Saint John Chrysostom is the odd man out.

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #352 on: February 28, 2011, 12:36:40 PM »

The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of artificial birth control.

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that contraception is ever okay is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers universally condemned contraception.

We can ask:  name one Father who approved the use of NFP?  The answer is simple: NOT one!

The Fathers condemned all marital sex which

1. Was not intended to create a child

2.  Was not able to create a child.

They saw much of the sexual relationships which we accept today as an abomination before the Lord, such as sex when a woman is past the age of child bearing or when a couple is infertile.  The Church no longer accepts these teachings of the Church Fathers.

It is because the teaching of Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae" is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers that we do not find even one quote from them in the Pope's statement.
There were dissenting Fathers, e.g. St. John Chrysostom who explicitely approves of the sexual intercourse of barren couples.  Of course, these Fathers were/are right, and the Church accepts the teachings of these Church Fathers.  But then again, St. John was par excellence a pastor, and so out of step with a dogmatic statement like HV (but in step with the statements of the Russian Synod).
Name one Father that allowed for artificial birth control.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #353 on: February 28, 2011, 01:00:40 PM »

The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of artificial birth control.

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that contraception is ever okay is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers universally condemned contraception.

We can ask:  name one Father who approved the use of NFP?  The answer is simple: NOT one!

The Fathers condemned all marital sex which

1. Was not intended to create a child

2.  Was not able to create a child.

They saw much of the sexual relationships which we accept today as an abomination before the Lord, such as sex when a woman is past the age of child bearing or when a couple is infertile.  The Church no longer accepts these teachings of the Church Fathers.

It is because the teaching of Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae" is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers that we do not find even one quote from them in the Pope's statement.
There were dissenting Fathers, e.g. St. John Chrysostom who explicitely approves of the sexual intercourse of barren couples.  Of course, these Fathers were/are right, and the Church accepts the teachings of these Church Fathers.  But then again, St. John was par excellence a pastor, and so out of step with a dogmatic statement like HV (but in step with the statements of the Russian Synod).
Name one Father that allowed for artificial birth control.
Not to be redundent, but to repeat what we have already said, name one Father that makes a distinction between so called "artificial birth control" (in which, no doubt, you include the natural method of withdrawal) and "natural family planning," which was explicitely condemned by SS. Clement, Jerome, Lactantius and others. Name one Father who condemns "ABC" but praises "NFP."
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: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #354 on: February 28, 2011, 01:24:50 PM »

The ones who left it as a pastoral issue.

The ones who condemned the drugs of sterility like the low dose birth control pill, the pull out method, or other barrier methods (btw, neither the pill nor the withdrawal method are barrier methods) also condemned the spacing of children.

Name for me one early church father who condoned the use of artificial birth control.

You didn't. And you can't. Because there aren't any.

If there are any, I am happy to concede. But for you to assert that the consensus of the Fathers was that contraception is ever okay is absurd.

But you haven't asserted it, for good reason - because the Fathers universally condemned contraception.

We can ask:  name one Father who approved the use of NFP?  The answer is simple: NOT one!

The Fathers condemned all marital sex which

1. Was not intended to create a child

2.  Was not able to create a child.

They saw much of the sexual relationships which we accept today as an abomination before the Lord, such as sex when a woman is past the age of child bearing or when a couple is infertile.  The Church no longer accepts these teachings of the Church Fathers.

It is because the teaching of Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae" is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers that we do not find even one quote from them in the Pope's statement.
There were dissenting Fathers, e.g. St. John Chrysostom who explicitely approves of the sexual intercourse of barren couples.  Of course, these Fathers were/are right, and the Church accepts the teachings of these Church Fathers.  But then again, St. John was par excellence a pastor, and so out of step with a dogmatic statement like HV (but in step with the statements of the Russian Synod).
Name one Father that allowed for artificial birth control.
Not to be redundent, but to repeat what we have already said, name one Father that makes a distinction between so called "artificial birth control" (in which, no doubt, you include the natural method of withdrawal) and "natural family planning," which was explicitely condemned by SS. Clement, Jerome, Lactantius and others. Name one Father who condemns "ABC" but praises "NFP."
Again, name one father who allowed for articificial birth control.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #355 on: February 28, 2011, 02:53:38 PM »

Again, name one father who allowed for articificial birth control.
Again, "artificial birth control" is an artificial creation of Humane Vitae. And SS. Clement, Jerome, Augustine, Lactianus etc. would condemn Humanae Vitae.  We know Papist that you are trying to obfuscate on that problem, but it is there for all to see.

Since the Fathers looked reality in the face and dealt with Truth, there was no artificial birth control for them to allow or disallow. Now, as to having intercourse without intending children, whatever method, that the Fathers do mention in passing.  Those Fathers who hadn't a clue as to married life dealt with it as a matter of dogma and condemned it, those who honored the marital estate and did not presume to violate the sanctity of its intimacy, dealt with it as a pastoral issue and allowed it, e.g. St. John Chrysostom.
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
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #356 on: March 01, 2011, 03:58:01 AM »

And you are only digging your own hole deeper.

There are no Church Fathers who espoused anything remotely close to your position. The idea that priests and bishops would be arguing that onanism or poisons to prevent the conception of children are morally licit ways for Christians to space there children would horrify every last one of them, and properly so.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #357 on: March 01, 2011, 12:52:02 PM »

And you are only digging your own hole deeper.
LOL. You're the one doing some heavy shovelin' there.

There are no Church Fathers who espoused anything remotely close to your position.

That pastoring be left to pastors, and not dogmatic papers? All the Church Fathers espoused that.

For the ones who breached that consensus, every single one of them condemned explicitely what you call Natural Family Planning. Another who breached it from a different angle was St. Basil the Great, who dogmatically laid down that an innocent spouse must repudiate and seperate from the one who committed adultery.  Wisely, the Church did not adopt that view either.

The idea that priests and bishops would be arguing that onanism or poisons


You are aware that the pill is not a poison, and hence would not fall under what you are profering here, no?  As to poisons, what Father advocated a use for it? But yet, what would they say of chemotheraphy?

to prevent the conception of children are morally licit ways for Christians to space there children would horrify every last one of them, and properly so.
Every last one of those Father upon whom you depend to defend HV properly (in line with their opinions) expressed their horry at the rhythm method to prevent the conception of children as a morally licit way for Christians to space there [sic] children.  That the idea of marital embrace horrified them, and they hadn't a clue on the married estate, goes a long way to explain that.
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 #358 on: March 01, 2011, 01:18:48 PM »

And you are only digging your own hole deeper.
LOL. You're the one doing some heavy shovelin' there.

There are no Church Fathers who espoused anything remotely close to your position.

That pastoring be left to pastors, and not dogmatic papers? All the Church Fathers espoused that.


It would be a serious error to say that the Catholic Church does not also make necessary room for pastoral decisions, case by case.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #359 on: March 01, 2011, 02:02:35 PM »

We can ask:  name one Father who approved the use of NFP?  The answer is simple: NOT one!

The Fathers condemned all marital sex which

1. Was not intended to create a child

2.  Was not able to create a child.

They saw much of the sexual relationships which we accept today as an abomination before the Lord, such as sex when a woman is past the age of child bearing or when a couple is infertile.  The Church no longer accepts these teachings of the Church Fathers.

It is because the teaching of Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae" is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers that we do not find even one quote from them in the Pope's statement.
Interesting. So the Eastern Orthodox Church can just throw out Patristic consensus when their teachings are inconvenient? Nice. And you say we are the heretics......
Logged
Tags: contraception 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »   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 0.314 seconds with 72 queries.