The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

PDN

The Smurf wrote: »

Probably? That's as much as you can say about it. It's just your guess.

The word 'probably' does not mean that something is a 'guess'. Historians and Bible scholars use the word 'probably' frequently since good scholarship and theological debate is better when seasoned with a little more humility and a little less dogmatism.

The Smurf

PDN wrote: »

The word 'probably' does not mean that something is a 'guess'. Historians and Bible scholars use the word 'probably' frequently since good scholarship and theological debate is better when seasoned with a little more humility and a little less dogmatism.

Good scholarship doesn't employ the early Church Fathers, who were undoubtedly Catholic in belief and practise, when it suits, and ignore them when it doesn't suit, as we've seen on this thread. :rolleyes:

To be humble does not mean to deny revealed truth by Holy Mother Church nor to employ moral relativism, denying there is a truth.

antiskeptic

The Smurf wrote: »

If you want to keep rejecting the immorality of contraception, then that is fine. The Church Fathers and your own founding fathers were all against contraception. You call in their 'support' to reject the Eucharist like they are some sort of authority yet (presumably) reject them when it doesn't suit your preferences.

As it looks like it might come in useful - referring as it does to a perennial disconnect, my last post can be broken down as follows:

1) You denounce personal intepretation (of history and scripture)

2) You refuse to explain by what alternative (to self-interpretation) means a person could conclude Romes position the authoritive one.

3) Indeed, it is an all-too-irregular occurance that a piece of scripture is posited as supporting the Roman position, cheerfully ignoring that someones personal interpretation is involved in drawing conclusions from that scripture.

4) This contradiction is ever-ignored and the position built on that contradiction repeated ad infinitum - as if by insistant repetition, the contradiction itself can be papered over.


De-constructing your post:

If you want to keep rejecting the immorality of contraception, then that is fine.

Item 4) above effectively covers this element

The Church Fathers and your own founding fathers were all against contraception.

You are familiar with the term sola scriptura and the idea that everything pertaining to faith and morals is to be derived thus?Why then do you introduce an irrelvancy?

You call in their 'support' to reject the Eucharist like they are some sort of authority yet (presumably) reject them when it doesn't suit your preferences.

On the contrary. I don't find them authorititive this way or that. My interest in Ignatius had to do with discovering whether Rome was pulling something from his hat in the same way that they do with scripture at large. If non-scripture agrees with scripture then fine. If not then also fine.


Is there any chance at all that you could address the actuall issue of the post? This contradiction in your position?

PDN

The Smurf wrote: »

Good scholarship doesn't employ the early Church Fathers, who were undoubtedly Catholic in belief and practise, when it suits, and ignore them when it doesn't suit, as we've seen on this thread. :rolleyes:

Then maybe you should reserve the rolling eyes for someone who has actually done that?

A little bit of pleasantness might actually make others be more willing to listen to your point of view.

The Smurf

antiskeptic wrote: »

As it looks like it might come in useful - referring as it does to a perennial disconnect, my last post can be broken down as follows:

1) You denounce personal intepretation (of history and scripture)

2) You refuse to explain by what alternative (to self-interpretation) means a person could conclude Romes position the authoritive one.

3) Indeed, it is an all-too-irregular occurance that a piece of scripture is posited as supporting the Roman position, cheerfully ignoring that someones personal interpretation is involved in drawing conclusions from that scripture.

4) This contradiction is ever-ignored and the position built on that contradiction repeated ad infinitum - as if by insistant repetition, the contradiction itself can be papered over.


De-constructing your post:




Item 4) above effectively covers this element




You are familiar with the term sola scriptura and the idea that everything pertaining to faith and morals is to be derived thus?Why then do you introduce an irrelvancy?




On the contrary. I don't find them authorititive this way or that. My interest in Ignatius had to do with discovering whether Rome was pulling something from his hat in the same way that they do with scripture at large. If non-scripture agrees with scripture then fine. If not then also fine.


Is there any chance at all that you could address the actuall issue of the post? This contradiction in your position?

Eucharist or thanksgiving anti, can you answer the question? What was Ignatius on about!

The Smurf

Re: The traditions Paul was talking about: you claim that what he referred to is now probably contained in the Gospels, so we needn't worry about 'other' traditions.

The tradition of handing on the faith is right there in Holy Scripture -2 Tim. 2:2, where Paul instructs the next generation, Timothy, to teach others the faith (3rd gen) who can teach others (4th gen). The argument used here about sola scriptura and the Bible, like it appeared out of the sky, is incompatible with reality and the intentions of the Lord when He established His Church.

See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") which means "to hand on" from one generation to the next.

The Church selected the Bible canon. John died around 100AD but the Bible wasn't compiled til 397AD. That means Holy Church had to rely on oral apostolic tradition during a 300 yr period, in order to determine which letters were inspired and which weren't. These traditions couldn't have all come from the Apostles themselves, as they were dead. So therefore they came from their successors. There is no good reason then why we should decide to listen to the fourth, fith, and sixth generation of apostolic successors, but ignore all the rest, such as those of the present.

Slav

The Smurf wrote: »

Good scholarship doesn't employ the early Church Fathers, who were undoubtedly Catholic in belief and practise, when it suits, and ignore them when it doesn't suit, as we've seen on this thread. :rolleyes:

Are you referring to your good self when you were happy to ignore my post my post where the fathers ruined Papacy and the Rome's claim of catholic authority (something that does not suit you) but then happily pushing Ignatius' view on Eucharist to antiskeptic when it does suit you? :rolleyes:

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

The tradition of handing on the faith is right there in Holy Scripture -2 Tim. 2:2, where Paul instructs the next generation, Timothy, to teach others the faith (3rd gen) who can teach others (4th gen). The argument used here about sola scriptura and the Bible, like it appeared out of the sky, is incompatible with reality and the intentions of the Lord when He established His Church.

Since I've been one of the people making that argument, I may as well back myself up.

What I mean is is that the Bible is the litmus test for all teaching and instruction that comes after it. Yes, by all means regard tradition and teaching, but if that teaching and tradition isn't consistent with the Bible, then it becomes problematic.

The Smurf wrote: »

The Church selected the Bible canon. John died around 100AD but the Bible wasn't compiled til 397AD. That means Holy Church had to rely on oral apostolic tradition during a 300 yr period, in order to determine which letters were inspired and which weren't. These traditions couldn't have all come from the Apostles themselves, as they were dead. So therefore they came from their successors. There is no good reason then why we should decide to listen to the fourth, fith, and sixth generation of apostolic successors, but ignore all the rest, such as those of the present.

No they didn't have to rely on oral tradition alone for much of that time. The churches had the letters of Paul, and the churches had the Hebrew Scriptures, and the churches had the Gospels just not all in a single volume. For example in Acts 17:11 it says that the Jews of Berea consulted the Scriptures daily to check that Paul was teaching correctly. Likewise I think it is only right that we have the same standard.

If Paul can be assessed by the Scripture by the people, I would say that any church or any church leader must be subject to that also.

PDN

The Smurf wrote: »

Re: The traditions Paul was talking about: you claim that what he referred to is now probably contained in the Gospels, so we needn't worry about 'other' traditions.

No, I made no such claim that we needn't 'worry' about other traditions. If you're going to cite my views then please try to do so accurately rather than putting words into my mouth.

We all pass on traditions of one kind or another. And, if we respect and value our elders, we will take the time to evaluate those traditions. History suggests that some traditions will be valuable while others will not be.

The tradition of handing on the faith is right there in Holy Scripture -2 Tim. 2:2, where Paul instructs the next generation, Timothy, to teach others the faith (3rd gen) who can teach others (4th gen).

I don't think anyone here is denying the value of one generation passing on their faith to the next - are they?

The argument used here about sola scriptura and the Bible, like it appeared out of the sky, is incompatible with reality and the intentions of the Lord when He established His Church.

Now you're rather muddling two separate issues. It is one thing to pass our faith on to future generations. It is another issue entirely to place such oral transmission of our faith on a par with Scriptures written by the apostles.

The Church selected the Bible canon.

That is true, but unfortunately obscured by your habit of thinking that 'the Church' is an ecclesiastical hierarchy rather than an organic group of people. Most historians agree that different local churches scattered across North Africa, Asia Minor and the Middle East gradually began to acknowledge certain books as being Scripture. Although there were disagreements over certain books (eg Revelation) there gradually developed a broad consensus as to which books were considered Scripture. Later Church Councils, as a measure to prevent heretical books creeping in, simply rubber stamped what was already common usage in the majority of churches.

John died around 100AD but the Bible wasn't compiled til 397AD.

Again, that isn't quite correct. We know of many instances where different individuals or groups compiled many or most of the biblical books together in an attempt to form a canon and thus exclude heretical works. The earliest historical record we have of anyone forming a New Testament canon of exactly the 27 books we have today was Athanasius of Alexandria in 367AD, followed by Damasus, Bishop of Rome, in 382AD. Even then there was disagreement, Gregory of Nazianzus (one of your early church fathers) continued to oppose the incusion of the Book of Revelation in the canon (thereby demonstrating why some of what the church fathers said needs to be taken with a pinch of salt).

That means Holy Church had to rely on oral apostolic tradition during a 300 yr period, in order to determine which letters were inspired and which weren't.

No, it doesn't mean any such thing at all.

Churches in different areas made decisions very early about which books were inspired based on reasonable criteria (apostolic authorship, date of authorship, conformity with apostolic doctrine etc).

Slav

antiskeptic wrote: »

You refuse to explain by what alternative (to self-interpretation) means a person could conclude Romes position the authoritive one.

There are plenty of alternative ways to come to that conclusion. You can be born into RCC, or you can convert to RCC because you are not too happy with some reforms of your own Church, or you can be attracted by the beauty of the high church Mass, or something like that - it just need to be accepted in your heart rather then in your mind. Once you accepted the Roman Catholicism you almost unavoidably accept its position as the authoritative one.

I think it never supposed to work the advertised way, i.e. you accept the RCC as the One True Church by studying the Scriptures and Tradition (because if you really study them you can only conclude that they are against the modern RCC teaching in many ways). It's just for internal use only so to strengthen in faith those who are already under the fold.

This is the very mistake that many young RC proselytisers make: they try to appeal to your mind and then they are getting disappointed that their message is not heard. After gaining some experience they start to see the right way and so they appeal to your heart instead (if they are any good at it). Of course it's much more difficult and requires individual approach but once your heart is open for it, it will usually digest any formula prepared by Vatican to feed the sheep no matter how much nonsense they put in it.

contradiction repeated ad infinitum - as if by insistant repetition, the contradiction itself can be papered over.

It can not in theory but it works amazingly well in practice. For example, if you constantly hear and read two word - "Peter" and "Pope" - used in one sentence, then you are very likely to interpret Mt 16:18 the RCC way. That's how human brains work - we don't tend to spend energy on retesting already established connections. Therefore Peter is Pope and Pope is the only one like Peter no matter how ridiculous, unbiblical and untraditional it is.

antiskeptic

The Smurf wrote: »

Eucharist or thanksgiving anti, can you answer the question? What was Ignatius on about!

Er... I've already conceded on this at msg 461?

antiskeptic wrote:

Darn! Refutation freely accepted.

Now will you begin to answer the issue in posts rather than skipping out from underneath them. The perennial question - what say you?

PDN

Slav wrote: »

It can not in theory but it works amazingly well in practice. For example, if you constantly hear and read two word - "Peter" and "Pope" - used in one sentence, then you are very likely to interpret Mt 16:18 the RCC way. That's how human brains work - we don't tend to spend energy on retesting already established connections. Therefore Peter is Pope and Pope is the only one like Peter no matter how ridiculous, unbiblical and untraditional it is.

Good point. For instance, in a previous post I referred to Athanasius who was Pope of Alexandria, and Damasus who was Pope of Rome. In the Third and Fourth Centuries the title 'Pope' was an honorific applied to the Bishop of many large cities. It did not carry the idea of a universal primacy over all Christians.

The Smurf

Slav wrote: »

Are you referring to your good self when you were happy to ignore my post my post where the fathers ruined Papacy and the Rome's claim of catholic authority (something that does not suit you) but then happily pushing Ignatius' view on Eucharist to antiskeptic when it does suit you? :rolleyes:

I don't think they did, sorry.

Jakkass wrote: »

Since I've been one of the people making that argument, I may as well back myself up.

What I mean is is that the Bible is the litmus test for all teaching and instruction that comes after it. Yes, by all means regard tradition and teaching, but if that teaching and tradition isn't consistent with the Bible, then it becomes problematic.

The Protestant runs up against a slight problem because they cannot prove that all important Apostolic Traditions were in fact committed to Scripture. You can't prove from Scripture that the command to follow oral Tradition has ceased with the compilation of the Bible. This whole bible alone idea is simpley not found in the Scriptures. Indeed, we can recall the Eunach who said, ''How can I understand Scripture if there is nobody to explain it to me?'' This was an intelligent Euncach, yet he still needed interpretational help.

The Lord asked His Apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations, with no mention of writing anything down. There is nowhere you can repudiate 2 Thes. 2:15:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

To be faithful we must follow the Sacred Tradition which is those teachings that weren't recorded in Scripture.


The trouble is this: the Lord never intended His Religion to be a religion of the book. No, Christianity is the Religion of the Word. This Word has two pillars: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is important to have a correct idea of what Tradition is, as opposed to small t tradition, which is ways of doing things, as opposed to Tradition which is those teachings not necessarily contained in Scripture but not conflicting with Scripture either. Of course, that idea is rejected here. The fact of the matter is that Christ condemned some Old Testament ceremonial rituals and other acts that contravened the Gospel. There are certain human traditions that, if contrary to the Gospel, we must reject, and oral apostolic tradition, as Paul has commanded, which we must accept, elsewise we are unfaithful.

The other problem is that the Lord never intended His Church to come about through people going into Easons, buying a Bible and then making their own mind up about it. No, this is not the way He planned it. Instead, he intended His Church, as the pillar and foundation of the Truth, to be guided by the Holy Spirit, built on the strong foundation of the Apostles, with Peter at the head, to come to a knowledge of all truth (remember the Lord said 'I will send you the Paraclete Who will guide you into all truth''.

So why the confusion? I use contraception because it is a good example of a controversial teaching, inside and outside the Catholic Church. Perhaps over 90% of Catholics in USA reject the teaching.

We look at what the early Christians thought about it. We can take a look:

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’" Letter of Barnabas 10:8 (A.D. 74).

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (A.D. 191).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (A.D. 191).

"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion." Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 (A.D. 388).

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 (A.D. 391).

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

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny." Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30 (A.D. 400).

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife." Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman." Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 (A.D. 522).

These are strong words from the Church Fathers. I only posted a selection.

If we fast forward a bit to the early Protestant Fathers (I say this slightly tongue in cheek. Forgive me. But it only highlights the ridiculous nature of Protestantism that they can't even agree amongst themselves, and would deny their own mother if it suited their biblical interpretation!) who were also opposed to contraception:

+ John Calvin in his Commentary on Genesis 38:8-10 states:

"Besides, he [Onan] not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrify the ground, rather than beget a son in his brother's name.

Verse 10: The Jews quite immodestly gabble concerning this thing. It will suffice for me briefly to have touched upon this as much as modesty in speaking permits. The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall to the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born--the hoped for offspring.

This impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses' mouth, that Onan, as it were, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the offspring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out a part of the human race. If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth with his semen, in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth."

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

This site also has a good examination of the issue: http://www.jesus-passion.com/contraception.htm
I can't vouch for the rest of the site, however.

The one issue that comes to mind is this: attachment to sin and the lust of the body and mind, darkens the intellect and weakens the will, such that, no matter how much evidence we are presented with, whether it be the witness of early Christians, the teachings from Sacred Scripture directly, which deal with this issue*, the Sacred Tradition, or even just the common sense experience that we have, none of that matters one jot if you have a firm attachment to sin, whether in actual fact or because one reserve the right to engage in the practise at a later date. The fallen man, even once becoming part of the Body of Christ, still has concupiscence, and has a great need to have his conscience properly formed in by the teaching Church, in what is right and wrong.

The conflict couldn't be greater: you have some people saying contraception is fine for married people, for example, and others saying, no, it is a sin. The Protestant has no answer to this conundrum. He denies the promises of Christ who said 'I will send the Paraclete who will guide you into all truth''. Where is the truth about contraception? The Protestant is dumbfounded and can only echo Pilate who said to the Lord, 'What is truth?'

With that, I am not going to engage further. I've provided all that is necessary. I can do nothing more. Only the Holy Spirit can convict of sin. I will pray for you all, and I will hope that you did read the post and not just skim over it!;)

PDN

The Smurf wrote: »

We look at what the early Christians thought about it. We can take a look:

That would be nice.

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’" Letter of Barnabas 10:8 (A.D. 74)

Whoa! That doesn't mention or even hint at contraception.

Do you think that the only reason people engage in oral sex is to avoid getting pregnant?

(Edit - I also can't help having serious doubts about the exegetical prowess of anyone, no matter how long ago they lived, who thinks that the reason the weasel was declared to be an unclean animal was because Moses was really telling the Israelites not to go down on each other. Heck, you couldn't make this stuff up!)

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (A.D. 191)

Hey! You just jumped over a century. What about those early Christians you were going to quote?

Quoting Clement as proof of what the apostles believed 150 years earlier isn't very convincing, is it?

If we fast forward a bit to the early Protestant Fathers (I say this slightly tongue in cheek. Forgive me. But it only highlights the ridiculous nature of Protestantism that they can't even agree amongst themselves, and would deny their own mother if it suited their biblical interpretation!) who were also opposed to contraception:

Now you're just being silly. It's been pointed out to you several times that Protestants view Luther and Calvin, just like the church fathers, as sincere Christians who were right about some stuff and woefully wrong about other stuff.

It would be helpful if you engaged more in discussion with others and stopped the nonsense about denying anyone's mother. Rome is not my mother, nor is Luther or Calvin.

The Smurf

PDN wrote: »

That would be nice.

Whoa! That doesn't mention or even hint at contraception.

Do you think that the only reason people engage in oral sex is to avoid getting pregnant?

(Edit - I also can't help having serious doubts about the exegetical prowess of anyone, no matter how long ago they lived, who thinks that the reason the weasel was declared to be an unclean animal was because Moses was really telling the Israelites not to go down on each other. Heck, you couldn't make this stuff up!)


Hey! You just jumped over a century. What about those early Christians you were going to quote?

Quoting Clement as proof of what the apostles believed 150 years earlier isn't very convincing, is it?


Now you're just being silly. It's been pointed out to you several times that Protestants view Luther and Calvin, just like the church fathers, as sincere Christians who were right about some stuff and woefully wrong about other stuff.

It would be helpful if you engaged more in discussion with others and stopped the nonsense about denying anyone's mother. Rome is not my mother, nor is Luther or Calvin.

I already gave the references to the plethora of Scripture verse from both Old and New Testament which condemn contraception as sinful.

Here they are again: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

I suggest you examine your conscience and see if there is any attachment to sin there that means your will is weakened and your intellect darkened. The fondness for sin means that there can be a great blindness to the Truth which God wants to show us. Perhaps we have too much to lose - our lustful pleasures, or perhaps we don't want more resonsibilities etc... Only humility can lead us to that holiness which God desires for us, and with that the death of all self-will, all lustful desires, my knowing best, all pride of self so that we at last surrender and say to God: Thy will be done, not mine, thus accepting the Lord and hearing His voice, which He gives to us via the Holy Mother Church, and Her two pillars of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Good point. For instance, in a previous post I referred to Athanasius who was Pope of Alexandria, and Damasus who was Pope of Rome. In the Third and Fourth Centuries the title 'Pope' was an honorific applied to the Bishop of many large cities. It did not carry the idea of a universal primacy over all Christians.

Indeed, bishops of Alexandria started to use the title centuries before Rome and without any shame still use it. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III:




By the way, Popes of Alexandria would have a much stronger case should they decide to claim succession of St Peter; at least it would base on history rather then mythology as it is in the case of Rome.

Also, some of the titles that the Catholic Church granted to Alexandria in the 4-5th centuries are of particular interest in the light of this thread:

• The Ecumenical Judge of the Holy Apostolic and Orthodox Church of God,

• The Thirteenth among the Holy Apostles,

• The Pillar and Defender of the Holy Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Doctrine.

Slav

The Smurf wrote: »

Slav wrote: »

The Smurf wrote: »

Good scholarship doesn't employ the early Church Fathers, who were undoubtedly Catholic in belief and practise, when it suits, and ignore them when it doesn't suit, as we've seen on this thread. :rolleyes:

Are you referring to your good self when you were happy to ignore my post my post where the fathers ruined Papacy and the Rome's claim of catholic authority (something that does not suit you) but then happily pushing Ignatius' view on Eucharist to antiskeptic when it does suit you? :rolleyes:

I don't think they did, sorry.

Exactly my point. You did not like the facts about the Church history and the Church Fathers so instead of addressing them you simply ignored them. Just as you said.

mehfesto

The Smurf wrote: »

Yes, withdrawal is a sin and Onan was killed for spilling seed, which displeased the Lord.

Withdrawal is not the rhythm method.

More here: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

Sorry I'm just getting back to this now, and I'll happily step aside if it's not in tune with the general thread.

Anyway, what's the difference between the two. Both are the same end result, albeit one just involves doing more shakey maths than the other. But seriously, given that both see the seed die (usually), aren't both as sinful as the other?

The Smurf

Slav wrote: »

Exactly my point. You did not like the facts about the Church history and the Church Fathers so instead of addressing them you simply ignored them. Just as you said.

Look it, Christ established His Church on the rock of Peter, not on his faith. The Lord essentially said to Peter ''You are rock and on this rock I build my Church.'' The other thing to remember is that the NT is a fulfilment of the NTT. In Is. 22:22 we see the office of what is essentially prime minister of the Davidic Kingdom. This office is perpetual and this is exactly what Chist had in mind when he instituted the Papacy. Now, the current Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI can trace his direct lineage back to St Peter. This is all fact and you can't deny it - the evidence is here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

The primacy of Peter, the fact of his having built the Church in Rome, the primacy of Peter's Apostolic See, and Peter's successors' claim of authority over the entire Church is found in abundance in the Scriptures, Church Fathers, Councils of the Church, and so on, as well as the Apostolic Succession. It's all there, mountains of evidence. You can sit back in your puffed up pride and delusion of knowledge, but the facts speak for themselves.

I, however, am fed up with your insolence, and for the good of my soul won't be having anything more to do with you.


THE CHURCH
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

THE PRIMACY OF PETER
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html


-

PDN

The Smurf wrote: »

Look it, Christ established His Church on the rock of Peter, not on his faith. The Lord essentially said to Peter ''You are rock and on this rock I build my Church.'' The other thing to remember is that the NT is a fulfilment of the NTT. In Is. 22:22 we see the office of what is essentially prime minister of the Davidic Kingdom. This office is perpetual and this is exactly what Chist had in mind when he instituted the Papacy. Now, the current Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI can trace his direct lineage back to St Peter. This is all fact and you can't deny it - the evidence is here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

The primacy of Peter, the fact of his having built the Church in Rome, the primacy of Peter's Apostolic See, and Peter's successors' claim of authority over the entire Church is found in abundance in the Scriptures, Church Fathers, Councils of the Church, and so on, as well as the Apostolic Succession. It's all there. You can sit back in your puffed up pride and delusion of knowledge, but the facts speak for themselves.

I, however, am fed up with your insolence, and for the good of my soul won't be having anything more to do with you.

Moderating Note:
Your habit of insulting everyone who holds different views to yourself, or of accusing them of disagreeing only because they want to sin, is most unpleasant.

In this forum we have posters from various denominations and creeds, and for the most part they are able to firmly state where they disagree with one another yet still treat one another with respect and courtesy.

Your posts are increasingly bringing a sectarian spirit to this Forum that we neither need nor want.

And please don't start complaining about the mods being anti-Catholic. If a Protestant had displayed half the rudeness and bigotry you have then I would have infracted them long ago.

You are free to state where you disagree with other posters, but if you wish to keep posting here please drop the personal insults. Slav, as an Orthodox Christian, is perfectly entitled to state his beliefs. You, as a Catholic, are perfectly entitled to state your beliefs. But to label somebody as 'insolent' because they don't agree with you is totally unacceptable.

I'm locking this thread until I'm convinced that posters can debate their differences like adults.