Question:
ask him if he’s saved – if he claims to be, ask him if he’s perfect. that would seem to me to put a stop to that argument. — Peace be with you 
How is that?
Response:
ask him if he’s saved – if he claims to be, ask him if he’s perfect. that would seem to me to put a stop to that argument. — Peace be with you – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have been engaged in a series of arguments with a Protestant. This particular one claims the following: all those who are "saved" are perfect, i.e. they do not sin, and also that these christians are immortal in body and spirit (eternal life). I believe these are the basic tenets of the belief system, and quite frankly, I don’t think he has worked all of the tenets out. I am concerned with him because at one time, I also believed the above.
Response:
I have been engaged in a series of arguments with a Protestant. This particular one claims the following: all those who are "saved" are perfect, i.e. they do not sin, and also that these christians are immortal in body and spirit (eternal life). I believe these are the basic tenets of the belief system, and quite frankly, I don’t think he has worked all of the tenets out. I am concerned with him because at one time, I also believed the above.
A bit odd, a a bit scary. I don’t think he should even qualify as a protestant. While some protestants believe in "once saved always saved" (which is also against the teaching of the Church and the Bible) the notion of "once saved, never sins again" is completely foreign to the Gospel and to the Church. Completely foreign. 1 John 1: 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. I think verse 10 says it pretty well. John is speaking to Christians, those who have been baptized, not to non-Christians. James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. As for the second notion, that the saved never fall asleep or die. Aside from the obvious notion that two thousand year old men and women aren’t walking around these days, Paul addresses the question distinctly. 1 Thessalonians 4:13 But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangels call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17 then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. CCC 655. "Finally, Christ’s Resurrection – and the risen Christ himself is the principle and source of our future resurrection: ‘Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. . . For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’[1 Cor 15:20-22 .] The risen Christ lives in the hearts of his faithful while they await that fulfilment. In Christ, Christians ‘have tasted. . . the powers of the age to come’[Heb 6:5 .] and their lives are swept up by Christ into the heart of divine life, so that they may ‘live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.’[2 Cor 5:15 ; cf. Col 3:1-3 .]" CCC 991. "Belief in the resurrection of the dead has been an essential element of the Christian faith from its beginnings. ‘The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live.’[Tertullian, De res, 1,1: PL 2, 841.] How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain…. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.[1 Cor 15:12-14 .]" It seems to me that these doctrines are wrong and go against the teachings of the church. Is there anyone who can provide rebuttals and objections to these points? It might be best if you replied directly to my e-mail, so as to aviod the NG chatter and the hordes of naysayers. I appreciate any help any of you can provide. And if you actually believe the above, then by all means, reply, and we shall have ourselves a disputation in the tradition of Acquinas, however mean the immitation. Tim Kearns The Troubadour: A Teller of Tales http://www.fortunecity.com/oasis/blackpool/59/index.html
– | _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr| | /__ __ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040| | / and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100| | |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp |
Response:
Readers, I am asking for the advice of a Roman Catholic, someone who knows and understands the teachings of the church. Please, if you are not a Roman Catholic, do not respond. Of course, you input is important in the greater religious argument, but it is not you to whom I direct the following. I have been engaged in a series of arguments with a Protestant. This particular one claims the following: all those who are "saved" are perfect, i.e. they do not sin, and also that these christians are immortal in body and spirit (eternal life). I believe these are the basic tenets of the belief system, and quite frankly, I don’t think he has worked all of the tenets out. I am concerned with him because at one time, I also believed the above. It seems to me that these doctrines are wrong and go against the teachings of the church. Is there anyone who can provide rebuttals and objections to these points? It might be best if you replied directly to my e-mail, so as to aviod the NG chatter and the hordes of naysayers. I appreciate any help any of you can provide. And if you actually believe the above, then by all means, reply, and we shall have ourselves a disputation in the tradition of Acquinas, however mean the immitation. Tim Kearns The Troubadour: A Teller of Tales http://www.fortunecity.com/oasis/blackpool/59/index.html
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The Church NEVER changes her teachings. That is because they come from God, and God does not change. Thus, the Church never taught that sex was for procreation only. YES IT DID. Check out Augustine on the matter. He believed that sex was indeed for procreation, and that the pleasure felt by the man (who cares what the woman feels) was venially sinful. Incorrect. That was NOT Church teaching. That was the opinion of Augustine only. He based it on his personal interpretation of the bible. He never taught or implied that this was Church teaching or apostolic Tradition. Then why were people refused marriage based on this?
People were and still are refused marriage if they are unable to have sexual relations at all because of some physical defect, because marriage involves the sexual act. A marriage cannot be consumated if there is no sexual act. They were never refused marriage if they were too old to conceive, in which case it was clear that sex would never be for procreation, though the couple would certainly be open to procreation. Marriage is also refused if a couple plans to have no children, because one of the purposes of marriage is to have children. The Church does give advice that it is better for widows or older people not to marry, in order to devote themselves better toward God, because this is the biblical advice St. Paul gives. Nevertheless, marriage is still permitted and it is good in these cases, because marriage is a sacrament which gives grace, and thus it is certainly good. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -One only has to study the first few centuries to see that the Church never prohibited marriages between couples who were way to old to ever have children. In the early centuries, there was a lot of debate as to if 2nd marriages should be permitted. Ultimately they were, but were frowned on. There was still never any debate about whether couples to old to conceive children should ever be married. It was always apostolic Tradition, thus Church teaching, that there was no uppler limit to the age of marriage, because there was never any Church teaching that sex was for procreation only.
Response:
There is a case where a Paraplegic was refused marriage in church because the church was of the opinion he could never consummate the marriage.
Correct. While the Church has never taught that sex was for procreation only, the Church does teach that in order to be married one must be able to perform the marital act. The two can hardly "become one flesh", and thus consumate the marriage, without performing the marital act. But again, since there was any Church teaching that sex in marriage was for procreation only, and since the apostolic Tradition has always been that sex was for procreation and the unitive aspects of marriage, then there was never any reason to forbid couples to marry who were to old to conceive children. As I said in the previous post, that was St. Augustine’s opinion, not apostolic Tradition or Church teaching.
Response:
I don’t know for sure but I can venture the opinion that it was St. Paul’s teaching in biblical times. He believed that the unmarried state was superior to the marital one . . . "I would that you all could be as I am"; i.e., single, but then conceded that some people should marry. Part of it seemed to be that they expected the second coming as imminent in their lifetimes. I think that’s why the church holds nuns and priests as holier than married people. Maybe they don’t officially teach that, but it is evident throughout writings that was the attitude. Of late I have come to think that the most saintly people were the quiet, unsung ones who took their religion to heart but lived their daily lives in obscurity, in holiness, taking care of their chores and their children, enduring their trials, and savoring whatever simple pleasures came their way.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We outgrew the idea that sex was for procreation only. It’s also necessary for emotional bonding (called the unitive aspect). So yes, infertile couples certainly can (and should) have sex. The Church NEVER changes her teachings. That is because they come from God, and God does not change. Thus, the Church never taught that sex was for procreation only. YES IT DID. Check out Augustine on the matter. He believed that sex was indeed for procreation, and that the pleasure felt by the man (who cares what the woman feels) was venially sinful. Incorrect. That was NOT Church teaching. That was the opinion of Augustine only. He based it on his personal interpretation of the bible. He never taught or implied that this was Church teaching or apostolic Tradition.
The penitentials (manuals of what penance to hand out for what sin) are evidence against this.
Response:
I don’t know for sure but I can venture the opinion that it was St. Paul’s teaching in biblical times. He believed that the unmarried state was superior to the marital one . . . "I would that you all could be as I am"; i.e., single, but then conceded that some people should marry. Part of it seemed to be that they expected the second coming as imminent in their lifetimes. I think that’s why the church holds nuns and priests as holier than married people. Maybe they don’t officially teach that, but it is evident throughout writings that was the attitude.
The Church is working hard on dropping that attitude, which is good. There is notthing wrong with marriage! Of late I have come to think that the most saintly people were the quiet, unsung ones who took their religion to heart but lived their daily lives in obscurity, in holiness, taking care of their chores and their children, enduring their trials, and savoring whatever simple pleasures came their way.
I have always thought this, because it’s much harder to sanctify day-to-day living when you don’t have built-in structures to protect prayer life. Religious have time for prayer built into their schedule. Your average Jane or Joe doesn’t, and if they have kids, forget it! Even as a married person with no kids, my life can get chaotic enough that some prayer gets neglected. 
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We outgrew the idea that sex was for procreation only. It’s also necessary for emotional bonding (called the unitive aspect). So yes, infertile couples certainly can (and should) have sex. The Church NEVER changes her teachings. That is because they come from God, and God does not change. Thus, the Church never taught that sex was for procreation only. YES IT DID. Check out Augustine on the matter. He believed that sex was indeed for procreation, and that the pleasure felt by the man (who cares what the woman feels) was venially sinful. Incorrect. That was NOT Church teaching. That was the opinion of Augustine only. He based it on his personal interpretation of the bible. He never taught or implied that this was Church teaching or apostolic Tradition.
Then why were people refused marriage based on this? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -One only has to study the first few centuries to see that the Church never prohibited marriages between couples who were way to old to ever have children. In the early centuries, there was a lot of debate as to if 2nd marriages should be permitted. Ultimately they were, but were frowned on. There was still never any debate about whether couples to old to conceive children should ever be married. It was always apostolic Tradition, thus Church teaching, that there was no uppler limit to the age of marriage, because there was never any Church teaching that sex was for procreation only.
– Alan Ferris eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div. When the only colour is black – the only sound the broken bell THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan arc’s Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rogue.htm ICQ UIN: 12811297
Response:
What was the reasoning behind frowning upon second marriages? Did it have to do with the age of the woman involved?
It was sort of felt that any person who needed to be married twice lacked self restraint.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We outgrew the idea that sex was for procreation only. It’s also necessary for emotional bonding (called the unitive aspect). So yes, infertile couples certainly can (and should) have sex. The Church NEVER changes her teachings. That is because they come from God, and God does not change. Thus, the Church never taught that sex was for procreation only. YES IT DID. Check out Augustine on the matter. He believed that sex was indeed for procreation, and that the pleasure felt by the man (who cares what the woman feels) was venially sinful.
Incorrect. That was NOT Church teaching. That was the opinion of Augustine only. He based it on his personal interpretation of the bible. He never taught or implied that this was Church teaching or apostolic Tradition. One only has to study the first few centuries to see that the Church never prohibited marriages between couples who were way to old to ever have children. In the early centuries, there was a lot of debate as to if 2nd marriages should be permitted. Ultimately they were, but were frowned on.
There was still never any debate about whether couples to old to conceive children should ever be married. It was always apostolic Tradition, thus Church teaching, that there was no uppler limit to the age of marriage, because there was never any Church teaching that sex was for procreation only.
Response:
My question: Knowing that according to catholics, copulation must be strictly reserved to procreation,
Not so. But they must be married. To each other. are infertile couples allowed to have sexual intercourse given that anyway they are unable to conceive?
Yes if they meet the above criteria. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks, Fran
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.