Ask-A-Catholic

[ravenlorre]

I am interested in starting a friendly discussion about the similarities and differences between Protestant doctrine and Catholic doctrine; I also hope to clear up any misconceptions about the Catholic Church, along the way.  My purpose here is not to talk anyone into becoming Catholic, to attack anyone's faith, or to engage in any conversation that isn't educational in nature.  For the record, I believe any person who has a personal relationship with Christ and is in agreement with the Nicene Creed is a Christian - so please do not ask me if you have to be Catholic to be Christian.

It is also important to let you know that I reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church about 6 years ago after about 15 years as a born again Christian in a Protestant tradition.

Finally, I am hardly the last word on Catholicism, if you are Catholic please feel free to answer any questions, enter into dialog, or add to any of my comments.  In the end, the Catholic Catechism is the best way to find accurate information on all Catholic teachings.

blessings

[CSloan]

Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?

[Barabbas]

My question is this... What is the definition of a Roman Catholic? 

Looking over the faith I understand the arguments against sola scriptura which are foundational to Protestant belief.  I know that oral tradition and the idea of apostolic succession are also foundational.   Looking over Roman Catholicism what seems critical to me the final authority of the Pope in all doctrinal matters.

What I don't understand is many Roman Catholics themselves don't necessarily submit to the authority of the church or the Pope... such as the use of birth control by many of the practitioners.  Are these folks "Protestant" in some way?  Are they still considered within the RCC fold, or are they looked at much the same way as Protestant groups are looked at?

My biggest problem with RCC is historical... I just think the empirical evidence against the Holy Spirit leading the church in some special way is too great.

[marc]

I am assuming that Catholicism is considered to be Christian doctrine based on rule #6.  As we all know, the Nicene Creed was written and approved by a Catholic Council.  If I am wrong about this point moderators please let me know your reasoning before locking my thread - thank you :)

Just a quick note to let you know that yes, Catholicism is considered a Christian doctrine by the rules of this board.  I'd actually like to state this emphatically, not because I have no disagreements with Catholicism, but because this has been called into question recently.  Catholicism is to be treated as a Christian belief rather than as a non-Christian belief. 

If any other moderators would like to elaborate or modify this, please do.

Thank you.

[Harold]

In the RCC is the Word the final authority?

If not why?

FTL

[ravenlorre]

Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?

Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian.  She was open to my questions and very nicely informed me that Catholics are Christians and then gave me a few books to read.  I devoured the books - I was thrilled to see that I had been misinformed about the Catholic Church.  I continued my own research into the Catechism / Church Fathers / Church history / disagreements between Catholics and Protestants and after about 1 year and a half I signed up for RCIA, which is a 6-8 month program which prepares adults to join the RC.  I remember my wife was initially horrified - she was raised in an independent fundamentalist church and felt she was already compromising by attending a Presbyterian Church - it took her a bit more time, but after reading Scott Hahn and a lot of church history she decided to join, as well.  I also have to say that a professor at my Presbyterian college really prepared me for my reconciliation with the RC.

[ravenlorre]

My question is this... What is the definition of a Roman Catholic? 

Looking over the faith I understand the arguments against sola scriptura which are foundational to Protestant belief.  I know that oral tradition and the idea of apostolic succession are also foundational.   Looking over Roman Catholicism what seems critical to me the final authority of the Pope in all doctrinal matters.

What I don't understand is many Roman Catholics themselves don't necessarily submit to the authority of the church or the Pope... such as the use of birth control by many of the practitioners.  Are these folks "Protestant" in some way?  Are they still considered within the RCC fold, or are they looked at much the same way as Protestant groups are looked at?

My biggest problem with RCC is historical... I just think the empirical evidence against the Holy Spirit leading the church in some special way is too great.

My definition of a Roman Catholic is a person who is engaged in a saving, sanctifying relationship with Christ; believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and accepts the Bible and Tradition as equal authority in their lives.

I agree with you that the institution of the Papacy is certainly an area of disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants; not to mention, people in the Orthodox faith.

I see the office of Pope as a necessary safeguard of Tradition.  Yes, there have been many nasty Popes throughout history, as well as some great ones, but the office of the Pope is what is truly important.  In my experience without the office of the Pope people with good intentions tend to drift toward other authorities - Orthodox churches believe God ordained government to be authorities over them; Protestants claim that scripture interprets scripture and the Holy Spirit should be our guide - which I believe is a noble idea, but ends up opening the door for private interpretation of the scriptures, denominations, radical individualism and ultimately, relativism - of course I am taking my line of thought to the extreme in order to illustrate my point.  I have come to believe that God instituted the office of the Pope (Matt 16:18) and sent His Holy Spirit to save guard His church.

It is interesting to me that history repelled you from the RC; while it actually attracted me to it.  I agree that the Crusades and the Inquisition and the bad Popes are all sinful parts of RC history, however I look to the Creeds, the Canonization of scripture, the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Doctrine of the Incarnation as evidence of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

I am assuming that Catholicism is considered to be Christian doctrine based on rule #6.  As we all know, the Nicene Creed was written and approved by a Catholic Council.  If I am wrong about this point moderators please let me know your reasoning before locking my thread - thank you :)

Just a quick note to let you know that yes, Catholicism is considered a Christian doctrine by the rules of this board.  I'd actually like to state this emphatically, not because I have no disagreements with Catholicism, but because this has been called into question recently.  Catholicism is to be treated as a Christian belief rather than as a non-Christian belief. 

If any other moderators would like to elaborate or modify this, please do.

Thank you.

Thanks Marc, I appreciate your feedback.

blessings

[Barabbas]

My question is this... What is the definition of a Roman Catholic? 

Looking over the faith I understand the arguments against sola scriptura which are foundational to Protestant belief.  I know that oral tradition and the idea of apostolic succession are also foundational.   Looking over Roman Catholicism what seems critical to me the final authority of the Pope in all doctrinal matters.

What I don't understand is many Roman Catholics themselves don't necessarily submit to the authority of the church or the Pope... such as the use of birth control by many of the practitioners.  Are these folks "Protestant" in some way?  Are they still considered within the RCC fold, or are they looked at much the same way as Protestant groups are looked at?

My biggest problem with RCC is historical... I just think the empirical evidence against the Holy Spirit leading the church in some special way is too great.

My definition of a Roman Catholic is a person who is engaged in a saving, sanctifying relationship with Christ; believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and accepts the Bible and Tradition as equal authority in their lives.

I agree with you that the institution of the Papacy is certainly an area of disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants; not to mention, people in the Orthodox faith.

I see the office of Pope as a necessary safeguard of Tradition.  Yes, there have been many nasty Popes throughout history, as well as some great ones, but the office of the Pope is what is truly important.  In my experience without the office of the Pope people with good intentions tend to drift toward other authorities - Orthodox churches believe God ordained government to be authorities over them; Protestants claim that scripture interprets scripture and the Holy Spirit should be our guide - which I believe is a noble idea, but ends up opening the door for private interpretation of the scriptures, denominations, radical individualism and ultimately, relativism - of course I am taking my line of thought to the extreme in order to illustrate my point.  I have come to believe that God instituted the office of the Pope (Matt 16:18) and sent His Holy Spirit to save guard His church.

It is interesting to me that history repelled you from the RC; while it actually attracted me to it.  I agree that the Crusades and the Inquisition and the bad Popes are all sinful parts of RC history, however I look to the Creeds, the Canonization of scripture, the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Doctrine of the Incarnation as evidence of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

blessings

Gotcha.  I understand how history might have attracted you.  I find it much more attractive to think that the church has always existed instead of had to be "Restored" in some way.  I just happen to interpret the church in much broader terms than just the RCC - but I do respect the tradition.  You won't get any traditional Catholic bashing from me. 

[ravenlorre]

In the RCC is the Word the final authority?

If not why?

FTL

Hello Harold,

The Scriptures and Tradition (Catholic dogma) are considered to be equally authoritative by the RC.  Briefly, the Catholic Church recognizes that many ideas that lie outside scripture, but do not contradict scripture are inspired by God.  A good example is the canonization of the scriptures; the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit determined the order and the content of the Bible.  Another example is the Doctrine of the Trinity - yes the Bible supports the Doctrine of the Trinity, but the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, developed the doctrine.

Finally, Luther's concept of Sola Scriptura is not support by the Bible.  On the contrary, Jesus tells us that the Church is authoritative:

Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Paul also tells us that the Church has authority:

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 6:4
Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!

Colossians 1:28
We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.

The one verse that Protestants rely on to support the teaching of sola scriptura is Tim. 3:16-17

6All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Unfortunately, the fact that scripture is God-breathed and useful doesn't mean that it is exclusively so.  Here is an awkward analogy - Safeway is useful for suppling groceries, but their are other groceries stories that are just as useful.

blessings

[ConnieLard]

I have a question.  I recently attended a contemplative retreat based on the writings of Thomas Merton and would like to find a group of people in my area of like mind.  Do most Catholic churches have groups similar to this?  Do you think most would be open to a non-Catholic joining a study group or prayer group?  I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to approach this?

[DCR]

ravenlorre,

During your investigation of the Roman Catholic Church, how much did you explore Orthodoxy, if at all?  Did you ever consider their side of the schism?

And, do you believe that the entire church was always under the single authority of the Papacy even during the original apostolic times of the first century?

Thanks for being open and willing to share your thoughts.  

[HRoberson]

I have a question.  I recently attended a contemplative retreat based on the writings of Thomas Merton and would like to find a group of people in my area of like mind.  Do most Catholic churches have groups similar to this?  Do you think most would be open to a non-Catholic joining a study group or prayer group?  I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to approach this?

You didn't ask me, but it is my impression that Merton groups do not particularly care whether you're Catholic or not. The thrust of various groups can change in that some are more contemplative, and others focus on social action. Then there are those in between.

While most folks that know about Merton are likely Catholics, not all Catholics like Merton (there was some hubbub recently about him being removed from an official tome that described Catholics to model).

Anyway, Merton groups are normally Merton groups, even if they are predominantly Catholic.

[ravenlorre]

I have a question.  I recently attended a contemplative retreat based on the writings of Thomas Merton and would like to find a group of people in my area of like mind.  Do most Catholic churches have groups similar to this?  Do you think most would be open to a non-Catholic joining a study group or prayer group?  I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to approach this?

Hi Connie,

I love Thomas Merton!  Unfortunately, you may have to dig a little to find groups that meet together in the Catholic Church - Protestants are the best at organizing small groups in my opinion - Catholics need to catch up.

The good news is that groups do exist - I am an oblate at a monastery in Oregon, for example.  I would recommend reading "A Cloistered Walk" by Kathleen Norris is you haven't already - she is a Presbyterian who decided to become an oblate (without becoming Catholic) and she does a nice job of explaining the process and what exactly an oblate is.  If you are interested I can give you more information, as well.  In general, monasteries are a great place to go to for personal retreats and spiritual renewal - I can give you more information about how to find one in your area if you would like.

Also, I am apart of a dynamic group in my church (you do not have to be catholic to join) that is focused on merging social service and faith - it is called Just Faith - you can look it up on the web if you are interested. 

Finally, have you heard about Lectio Divina?  It is a method of prayer that focuses around the scriptures - many Catholic Churches has groups that meet together to pray through specific scripture.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

ravenlorre,

During your investigation of the Roman Catholic Church, how much did you explore Orthodoxy, if at all?  Did you ever consider their side of the schism?

And, do you believe that the entire church was always under the single authority of the Papacy even during the original apostolic times of the first century?

Thanks for being open and willing to share your thoughts. 

I really only investigated the Orthodox Tradition briefly after I joined the RC.  I am sure I have much to learn about their faith and doctrines.  Although, I have read a lot of writings from early Orthodox Church Fathers like St. Basil and St Gregory - I really admire their tradition of monasticism and contemplative prayer.

I believe that the Orthodox Churches and the Anglican / Episcopalian Churches are so close to Roman Catholicism that I only distinguish between the traditions if it might offend someone if I didn't - I hope that makes sense.

I believe in the supremacy of Peter - that Jesus set him apart from the other apostles as the first Pope.  I acknowledge that the office of the Pope has developed over the past 2000 years in order to lead a world wide church, but it was there in the beginning as well.

blessings

[CSloan]

Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?

Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian.  She was open to my questions and very nicely informed me that Catholics are Christians and then gave me a few books to read.  I devoured the books - I was thrilled to see that I had been misinformed about the Catholic Church.  I continued my own research into the Catechism / Church Fathers / Church history / disagreements between Catholics and Protestants and after about 1 year and a half I signed up for RCIA, which is a 6-8 month program which prepares adults to join the RC.  I remember my wife was initially horrified - she was raised in an independent fundamentalist church and felt she was already compromising by attending a Presbyterian Church - it took her a bit more time, but after reading Scott Hahn and a lot of church history she decided to join, as well.  I also have to say that a professor at my Presbyterian college really prepared me for my reconciliation with the RC.

Let me see if I understand.

You were led to catholicism by another catholic. You researched some catholic books and decided to become a catholic. Soon after you led your wife from a fundamentalist church down the same path.

Did you have any children you also brought to this faith?

[ravenlorre]

For the record, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe our family led to the Church by God :)

blessings

[CSloan]

We have two daughters and we are raising them Catholic.  Although our oldest attends a Protestant youth group, as well as Mass.  Also, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe we were lead to the Church by God :)

blessings

Have you ever considered you were on the narrow path, but have been led onto the wide path?

[ravenlorre]

For the record, although I was introduced to the Catholic Church through a person and books, we believe our family led to the Church by God :)

blessings

Have you ever considered you were on the narrow path, but have been led onto the wide path?

Of course.  I didn't make this decision lightly.  As I wrote earlier, I spent years researching and praying before I actually became Catholic.  I am now convinced that I was misinformed about Catholicism by my religious leaders.

blessings

[broach972]

I am glad and impressed that this thread has been civil and extremely enlightening.  Ravenlorre, I also joined the Catholic Church recently...this past Easter.  My experience mirrors yours to a degree.  My journey lasted for about 10 years.  I too was attracted to RC as a history major.  Ultimately, I came to the same conclusions as you did.  It took some time.

My wife also grew up in a very conservative fundamentalist background.  Most of her family attended Bob Jones Academy, which is attached to the Bob Jones University in South Carolina.  I was shocked that she wanted to explore Catholicism.  She made it very clear when I met her that if I continued to explore it, then I could forget about a longterm relationship.  I wasn't sure if Catholicism was for me at the time, and I didn't want to sacrifice a potential mate, so I backed off.  I continued to study Catholicism and work out my problems with the faith.  Ironically, it was the authority of the Papacy that was the last remaining obstacle for me.  I firmly believed that if God wanted me to take this path, then He would provide the opportunity.

After being married for about three years, my wife shocked me when she told me that she wanted to explore Catholicism.  No doubt that it was God who opened the door.  I thought that it would never be a possibility.  We attended RCIA classes and a year and half later, we both entered the Church.

Ravenlorre, thanks for sharing your experience and insights.

[DCR]

ravenlorre,

During your investigation of the Roman Catholic Church, how much did you explore Orthodoxy, if at all?  Did you ever consider their side of the schism?

And, do you believe that the entire church was always under the single authority of the Papacy even during the original apostolic times of the first century?

Thanks for being open and willing to share your thoughts. 

I really only investigated the Orthodox Tradition briefly after I joined the RC.  I am sure I have much to learn about their faith and doctrines.  Although, I have read a lot of writings from early Orthodox Church Fathers like St. Basil and St Gregory - I really admire their tradition of monasticism and contemplative prayer.

I believe that the Orthodox Churches and the Anglican / Episcopalian Churches are so close to Roman Catholicism that I only distinguish between the traditions if it might offend someone if I didn't - I hope that makes sense.

I believe in the supremacy of Peter - that Jesus set him apart from the other apostles as the first Pope.  I acknowledge that the office of the Pope has developed over the past 2000 years in order to lead a world wide church, but it was there in the beginning as well.

blessings

If I were seriously exploring what I suspected to be the continuous apostolic church, then the RCC/EOC question would have to be clearly resolved in my mind before I would consider going there.  To be honest, from the outside looking in, the scales are weighed slightly in favor of the Orthodox, in my opinion... just in reading what led up to the schism and how things evolved afterwards and so forth.  We have had some Orthodox posters on this forum before.  One poster, CDHealy, was fairly prolific and eager to give a defense of Orthodoxy.  He was still in the catechumen process (or whatever they call it), but left the board when he and his family were officially inducted into the Orthodox Church (Antiochian Orthodox, I believe) earlier this year.  Anyway, I thought I would ask you whether you ever investigated this (and, the question is open to other Catholic converts as well).

Where the Papacy is concerned, and particularly the "supremacy of Peter," does that mean that Peter had authority above the other apostles?  If so, when looking at the New Testament scriptures empirically, I find problems with that.  In the first few chapters of Acts, I do see Peter having a prominent role.  However, as time goes on, Peter seems to fade into the background, and we see people like James apparently having a more authoritative role.  Notice in the epistle to the Galatians that the apostle Paul calls attention to a time when Peter/Cephas was said to be in the wrong (Galatians 2:11).  So, I'm missing where Peter and his "successors" were said to have a single authoritative role over the Church.  Furthermore, in the first century, the church seemed to be centered in Jerusalem.  As time went on, Antioch and then the Asia Minor area (modern-day Turkey) seemed to be where the Church was concentrated.  Rome was just a "mission" (if you will) in the beginning.  A central headquarters in Rome seemed to come much later.  And, the power of the Bishop of Rome seemed to evolve much later.

Anyway, I'm just rambling through things I've pondered before.  Thanks for your insight.

[ravenlorre]

I am glad and impressed that this thread has been civil and extremely enlightening.  Ravenlorre, I also joined the Catholic Church recently...this past Easter.  My experience mirrors yours to a degree.  My journey lasted for about 10 years.  I too was attracted to RC as a history major.  Ultimately, I came to the same conclusions as you did.  It took some time.

My wife also grew up in a very conservative fundamentalist background.  Most of her family attended Bob Jones Academy, which is attached to the Bob Jones University in South Carolina.  I was shocked that she wanted to explore Catholicism.  She made it very clear when I met her that if I continued to explore it, then I could forget about a longterm relationship.  I wasn't sure if Catholicism was for me at the time, and I didn't want to sacrifice a potential mate, so I backed off.  I continued to study Catholicism and work out my problems with the faith.  Ironically, it was the authority of the Papacy that was the last remaining obstacle for me.  I firmly believed that if God wanted me to take this path, then He would provide the opportunity.

After being married for about three years, my wife shocked me when she told me that she wanted to explore Catholicism.  No doubt that it was God who opened the door.  I thought that it would never be a possibility.  We attended RCIA classes and a year and half later, we both entered the Church.

Ravenlorre, thanks for sharing your experience and insights.

What an interesting story!  Thanks for sharing it......my wife is quite familiar with Bob Jones University - it was highly admired at the church she grew up in.

I followed a link in your profile that lead me to a Traditional Catholic ministry - are you Traditional Catholic?

blessings

[mllevaleur]

I've also been following this thread with interest, as I was raised in the Church of Christ and became Catholic after trying to convert my Catholic friend to the CoC, lol. (He's now my husband. ;-)

Anyway, I thought I would ask you whether you ever investigated this (and, the question is open to other Catholic converts as well).

I did not initially investigate Orthodoxy, personally, simply because my focus was on Catholicism (as I was trying to convert someone from Catholicism). After seeing all my misconceptions, and reading a lot of books about Catholicism and history, and the history of the papacy (especially Steve Ray's Upon This Rock), I was thoroughly convinced of the necessity of the papacy, and honestly just wasn't all that aware of Orthodoxy to begin with. But having grown up in a church where split upon split happened constantly, and where every person claimed equal authority to decide such things, I can tell you...the idea of one final authority on Earth just basically made a lot of sense.

A couple years after I converted, I was on a board with a lot of fellow Catholic ladies, but we had some protestants too (it was an NFP board, anyone was welcome though it was mostly Catholics). One protestant lady about my age was beginning to look into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. She was very thorough about her research, and she shared with us as she went along. For a while it looked like she was leaning towards Orthodoxy, but then after doing more research she came to the conclusion that to be truly "One" (one of the four marks of the Church), the papacy was necessary. I found her journey to be fascinating and enlightening, I learned a lot.

Then there was an Orthodox lady on our board (who had converted from protestantism), and I struck up an email discussion with her. I was very interested in learning more about what she saw as the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It seemed to me, though, that the things she would explain were either misunderstandings of Catholicism, or else very similar to Catholicism in which case I'd say, "Oh! Well we believe that too," but she didn't seem to believe me. It's almost like she didn't WANT to hear that Catholics believed the same things. I tried my best to explain how what we believed was similar, and to ask for clarification if I was misunderstanding Orthodox beliefs, but just when I thought we were getting somewhere, she told me her spiritual director had said she needed to stop engaging in apologetics, and she left the board and stopped emailing me. :-/

I've done research here and there on my own several times since, and each time it seems to come down to the same semantics arguments, when it seems the majority of the beliefs are the same (save the papacy of course), and on one side you have the Orthodox people saying "No! It's not the same, it's very different," and you have Catholic people saying, "Um...but what you just explained is exactly what we believe...what's the difference?"  On most issues, I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how different the beliefs are, or else that the differences are all that significant.

As for the papacy, I do believe that Peter was first among equals, certainly the papacy has developed over time into what you see today, but I do believe even at the beginning Jesus gave a special role to Peter and did so for a reason.

As for the Great Schism, there were certainly wrongs done on both sides. I pray that one day the two lungs of the Church may be reunited again. 

[Quinn]

Could you explain about the "no birth control" doctrine?

[ravenlorre]

The moderators have noticed we are having a massive increase in the amount of bantering back and forth between Catholics and Protestants here at Grace Centered Forums.  As the discussions intensify, which I am sure they will, remember that we are free to discuss doctrine.  We are free to discuss why we think a certain belief is true or why we believe a certain belief is not true according to the scriptures.  However we are not free to call other posters heretics, cultists, or any other derogatory name.  Keep the posts focused on the topic of discussion at hand and off of personal attacks and we will be able to have civil, intelligent discussions with one another.

There have already been some posters on both sides who have overstepped their bounds in this area on a few recent threads.  Remember to speak the truth in love.  Remember to keep the royal law according to the scriptures.  Remember to love your neighbor as yourself.  After you have finished a post, read over it a second time to make sure all personal attacks have been edited out.  Then, and only then, hit the post button.

For those who are not thick skinned, please remember if someone is explaining why they think a belief you cherish deeply is false according to the scriptures, they are not necessarily attacking you.  Instead they may just be trying to let you know how their understanding of a certain scripture differs from yours.  But if you feel like someone is attacking you and calling you a heretic or a cultist, please report that to the moderators - we don't catch everything.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Before I continue posting on this board, I want to respond to this post from the moderators.  I am really glad to see that the leadership of this site is concerned with how it's members are treated.  I have posted on many boards where agendas or doctrines are more important than people and not only do people get hurt - learning is replaced by partisanship.

I am here because I like to discuss theology and I enjoy talking with people who may or may not agree with me.  I am not concerned about pushing my choice of church membership on anyone, however I do agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church and I am sure I probably come across as having strong opinions on the subject.  I am more than willing to apologize for my presentation if it has offended anyone, but I am not willing to apologize for my beliefs.  Also, I believe that my opinion on any ministry that uses deception, hate, or coercion as means to justify an end, are will known and I will try not to express them again.

Once again, I am in total agreement with the leadership of this site; the definition of an orthodox Christian is a person who agrees with the Nicene Creed and I would add; is engaged in an authentic, growing, sanctifying relationship with Christ.  If you tell me that you are a Christian, I will believe you.  Please notice that my definition of a Christian includes millions of people who are not members of the Catholic Church and include the majority of the people who post on this site.

So please remember, if I happen to get swept away in the passion of a heated conversation and offend you, I am sorry and will apologize on the spot.

One last thing - I realize that I never defined a term that I have used in my posts - pseudo-Protestant.  What I mean by this term is all churches that retain Protestant-based theology, but are no longer orthodox - Jehovah's Witnesses, for example retain Protestant roots, but no longer adhere to the Nicene Creed, and therefore lie outside orthodox teachings.  There are also pseudo-Catholic churches - although they may not be as well known to people who are not Catholic - the Society of Pius X is one such church that broke away from the Catholic Church.  Do Christians exist in these churches - of course, but the churches' doctrines are not orthodox.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

Could you explain about the "no birth control" doctrine?

Yes.  The Catholic Churches stance on the issue of birth control is consistent with it's teachings on all issues concerning the value of human life, for example; euthanasia, the death penalty, just war and abortion.  The Catholic Church teaches that human life must be defended and protected whenever possible; birth control like abortion, restricts life and therefore is inconsistent with the Churches teachings.

It is interesting to note that the majority of Protestant Churches were against birth control before 1930, as well.

blessings

[zoonance]

The Pill, in practical terms, has been both a blessing and a curse.   Protecting a young family still getting to know each other and giving a false license to sexual freedom in others - too often chunking committed relationship out the window (perhaps a lifetime habit not easily reversed and passed on to the kids?).   In terms of scriptural pros and cons, I suspect there ain't much.    What were the methods of birth control before 1930?

[ravenlorre]

The Pill, in practical terms, has been both a blessing and a curse.   Protecting a young family still getting to know each other and giving a false license to sexual freedom in others - too often chunking committed relationship out the window (perhaps a lifetime habit not easily reversed and passed on to the kids?).   In terms of scriptural pros and cons, I suspect there ain't much.    What were the methods of birth control before 1930?

Birth control has been used for centuries, but was never very effective before the 1960's, I think.  I am not really sure about the methods.

blessings

[zoonance]

I think at least some type of intrauterine device was used.   I recall something about nomads using rocks or something in camels to keep them from breeding centuries ago.  Perhaps a version of the rhythm method, chastity belt!, folklore remedies? abortion?  kill the undesired sex?
Until the reproductive cycle was worked out, the methods were still far less effective than "just say no" :)

[Harold]

In my family growing up, we had a few catholics in the wood shed, and the rhythm method was very popular, along with condoms.

FTL

[Quinn]

Yes.  The Catholic Church's stance on the issue of birth control is consistent with its teachings on all issues concerning the value of human life, for example; euthanasia, the death penalty, just war and abortion.  The Catholic Church teaches that human life must be defended and protected whenever possible; birth control like abortion, restricts life and therefore is inconsistent with the Churches teachings.

Thank you.  Just to clarify, does the Catholic Church believe that the only purpose of sexual relations is for procreation? 

[janine]

As with any other question you might ask any member of any religious group --

You'll get two or three different answers from Catholicism's own, owned resources.

Then you'll get two or three different answers from actual thoughtful Catholics in teaching positions -- people whose job it is, as a priest or a catechism teacher or whatever, to interpret the church's stance from "official" publications and documents, to "real life" understanding and use by regular Catholics.

Then you'll get crazy Aunt Mary's answer -- you know, the dear sweet lady who burns lots and lots of candles for you and prays to everyone in the pantheon of saints for you and who buried a statue of St. Anthony on his little head in her yard when she wanted to sell her house.

[ravenlorre]

No.  Sex for procreation only is an idea put forth by Augustine - Protestant Reformers and Catholic theologians have both tried to promote this idea during various points in history.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

As with any other question you might ask any member of any religious group --

You'll get two or three different answers from Catholicism's own, owned resources.

Then you'll get two or three different answers from actual thoughtful Catholics in teaching positions -- people whose job it is, as a priest or a catechism teacher or whatever, to interpret the church's stance from "official" publications and documents, to "real life" understanding and use by regular Catholics.

Then you'll get crazy Aunt Mary's answer -- you know, the dear sweet lady who burns lots and lots of candles for you and prays to everyone in the pantheon of saints for you and who buried a statue of St. Anthony on his little head in her yard when she wanted to sell her house.

I agree.  There are a lot of opinions out there from laypersons and clergy alike, but the Catholic Catechism is an accurate summary of the doctrines of the Church.  I use it as a final authority on Church teachings.

blessings

[Quinn]

As with any other question you might ask any member of any religious group -- You'll get two or three different answers from Catholicism's own, owned resources.

Yes, I know.  That's why I asked ravenlorre.  From what I've seen, he's intelligent, even-handed, and straightforward.  (I don't post much, but I'm a prodigious lurker...) 


ravenlorre:
If you'll indulge me a little more, could you explain the difference between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" methods of birth control?  For example, can you tell me why the "rhythm" method is acceptable, but the Pill is not?  (Since they both have the same goal.)