Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $83,846
98%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $1.2k to go!! We can do this!! Thank you all very much!

Posts by koinonia

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Card. Braz de Aviz moves on the FFI, curtails use of Usus Antiquior. Fr. Z rants, offers tough love

    07/31/2013 2:21:21 AM PDT · 10 of 11
    koinonia to NYer

    Official statement of the Founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Fr. Stefano M. Manelli, F.I.:

    Con riferimento al Decreto della Congregazione per gli Istituti di Vita Consacrata e le Società di Vita Apostolica dell’11 luglio 2013 (Prot. n. 52741/2012), P. Stefano M. Manelli, con tutto l’Istituto dei Frati Francescani dell’Immacolata unito a lui, obbedisce al S. Padre e confida che da questa obbedienza ne vengano grazie più grandi.

    ...translation:
    With reference to the Decree of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life of July 11, 2013 (Prot. N. 52741/2012), Fr. Stefano M. Manelli, with the entire Institute of the Franciscans of the Immaculate united with him, obeys the Holy Father and trusts that with this obedience there may come even greater graces.

    The link is here: http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/pope-francis-franciscans-of-the-immaculate-vetus-ordo/

  • For the First Time, Francis Contradicts Benedict

    07/31/2013 2:20:45 AM PDT · 89 of 89
    koinonia to Brian Kopp DPM; ebb tide

    Official statement of the Founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Fr. Stefano M. Manelli, F.I.:

    Con riferimento al Decreto della Congregazione per gli Istituti di Vita Consacrata e le Società di Vita Apostolica dell’11 luglio 2013 (Prot. n. 52741/2012), P. Stefano M. Manelli, con tutto l’Istituto dei Frati Francescani dell’Immacolata unito a lui, obbedisce al S. Padre e confida che da questa obbedienza ne vengano grazie più grandi.

    ...translation:
    With reference to the Decree of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life of July 11, 2013 (Prot. N. 52741/2012), Fr. Stefano M. Manelli, with the entire Institute of the Franciscans of the Immaculate united with him, obeys the Holy Father and trusts that with this obedience there may come even greater graces.

    The link is here: http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/pope-francis-franciscans-of-the-immaculate-vetus-ordo/

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 8:56:06 AM PST · 58 of 139
    koinonia to allmendream

    That certain populations or nations had set backs is reasonable, but the world population continues to grow. It grew even during the World Wars - because the rest of the world was multiplying more than the number who died in the Gulags and concentration camps and battles. Same with plagues, etc. At any rate, it is not a “proof,” but simply indicates that a relatively young human race is plausible, even probable, whereas posing a human race in the hundreds of thousands of years old does not match up with even a miniscule growth rate.

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 8:48:40 AM PST · 56 of 139
    koinonia to BrandtMichaels

    Thank you for the links. I found this one helpful as well: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 8:45:33 AM PST · 54 of 139
    koinonia to KarlInOhio

    Thank you for the quote. The great St. Augustine! I love him. But the post was not about Scriptures, creation, etc. simply an indication, a mathematical one, that the human race is relatively young. You could use the equation to go backwards form $7 billion dollars to see how long it took yielding the same exponential interest. Not a “proof,” but certainly gives an indication that it’s just as rash to believe man existing for zillions of years. God bless...

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 8:40:29 AM PST · 53 of 139
    koinonia to JCBreckenridge
    The post actually uses a modest 0.45% growth rate. After WWII it reached as much as 2.3% and continues to be over 1%. So 0.45% medium is not presumptuous.

    He wrote: for eight people to surpass 7 billion over a period of 4600 years the annual growth rate would only have to be 0.45% (yes, less than half a percent annual growth rate). 4600 years is realistic, then, for arriving at 7 billion people from 4 married couples.

    While it's not a proof, it is certainly an indication that speaking of a relatively young human race is not ridiculous.

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 8:34:40 AM PST · 51 of 139
    koinonia to GunRunner
    Young Earth nonsense makes us all look foolish.

    Post was about the human race, not the age of the earth. It is not a "proof," but does certainly indicate that speaking of a relatively young human race is not "stupid" and is at least no less credible than "believing" in the scientific conjectures of our day.

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 8:28:14 AM PST · 50 of 139
    koinonia to WhiskeyX
    Any documentation of a world population regularly declining? Here is a graph showing the annual growth rate. Notice how they flatten the rate at 4000BC for no apparent reason.

    The logical trend would show that about 4-5000BC there was a "beginning" of the present world population.

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 8:00:56 AM PST · 45 of 139
    koinonia to muir_redwoods
    The earth is about 4.6 billion years old

    The post wasn't about the age of the earth. Regardless, one can "believe" theories that say the earth is 4.6 billion years old. It may well be. But scientists are fish in an aquarium and there observations of what is outside there aquarium are very limited.

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 7:56:09 AM PST · 44 of 139
    koinonia to Fish Speaker
    this equation assumes that the original 8 people are still alive after 1481 years and that all eight of them, as well as every other human born, is having more babies every year they’re alive.

    No, it's based on a growth rate. If there are 1000 people and 10 die but 15 are born, you have 1005 (that's what he means by a 0.5% growth rate). He presumes that people are dying every year - the population growth today is actually much larger - 1.4% - regardless of how many die, the new population each year is higher, and this exponentially.

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 5:46:57 AM PST · 18 of 139
    koinonia to koinonia; All
    If you read the post, he acknowledges DEATH in all of its forms - there is a deathrate. But the statistics are clear: the birthrate of man has consistently been higher, even in the years of war. Where's the proof that man existed for hundreds of thousands of years?
  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 5:41:34 AM PST · 17 of 139
    koinonia to Moonman62

    This post is not about Christianity. It’s about common sense. His equation is no different than what an investor would use for an interesting bearing investment. Each year it bears interest and that interest bears interest. Start with $8 and with a 0.5% yield of interest annually you arrive at $7 billion after 1481 years. Plug and chug.

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 5:37:23 AM PST · 16 of 139
    koinonia to muawiyah

    He doesn’t deny that possibility that there were years of stagnancy or higher death rates. But the fact is that from 1900 to the present, even with World Wars, abortion, etc. the growth rate has always been consistently over 1% and we can presume that that has generally been the case even before the 1900’s.

    His point is to be reckoned with: you simply can’t say that man dates back hundreds of thousands of years if, in general, population is simply growing.

  • Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

    02/22/2013 4:37:00 AM PST · 1 of 139
    koinonia
    Seems so clear, and yet everyone ignores it. The human race is relatively young. Before this section he talks about how time by its very nature must have a beginning and about the historicity of the flood. He's just scratching the service, to be sure. But enlightening and the links are excellent.
  • Compare the candidates: Obama, Romney, Goode (Vanity)

    11/07/2012 12:38:15 PM PST · 323 of 324
    koinonia to Hegewisch Dupa; libdestroyer; JustSayNoToNannies
    God and your country are not impressed by stupidity. Your family - well, poor them

    I guess it's intelligent and patriotic to vote for whoever the GOP places on the ballet and to call anyone who votes for a candidate they deem better "stupid"?

    At any rate Romney did not lose even a single state because of Goode, not even Virgina; he simply lost. Obama had almost 3 million more popular votes than Romney.

    As for God, my country and my family, I don't consider you their spokesperson. While I share your disappointment in the election and reelection of B.O., I'm also disappointed in you and other fellow FReepers who refuse to respect my freedom and right to vote for a non GOP candidate. Is this "Free Republic" or "Pro Republican"?

  • The St. Marcel Initiative [Bp Williamson Goes Freelance]

    11/07/2012 1:30:44 AM PST · 14 of 20
    koinonia to marshmallow

    The irony. In the name of “tradition” he refuses to submit to the Tradition of obeying the Pope and Magisterium. It just shows that he is very untraditional.

  • The treasure of Sacred Scripture: "If thou didst know the gift of God!!!"

    10/31/2012 6:29:02 AM PDT · 4 of 5
    koinonia to jsanders2001
    Sounds like an urban legend to me

    No legend here. The woman's friend Kathleen (whom I know personally) actually came to Father Dean because they wanted to know if they needed to restore the book with the $20,000 in it. He has shared this on any number of occasions when speaking of the treasure we have in the Word of God.

    At any rate, with the Bible we have much more than $100 on every page; we have the revelation of God Himself. And that's no legend. :-)

  • The treasure of Sacred Scripture: "If thou didst know the gift of God!!!"

    10/31/2012 3:51:11 AM PDT · 2 of 5
    koinonia to Salvation; NYer

    Ping... and God bless! :-)

  • The treasure of Sacred Scripture: "If thou didst know the gift of God!!!"

    10/31/2012 3:47:31 AM PDT · 1 of 5
    koinonia
    The story is in the comments. In the original post he speaks of the Holy Bible as "the leatherbound love letters of God." Would that we might read and cherish them!
  • Fr. McBrien of Notre Dame Says Long Arm of Bishops Can’t Reach Catholic Colleges

    10/31/2012 3:18:23 AM PDT · 19 of 25
    koinonia to Rashputin; marshmallow

    He’s “out of reach” on that campus because

    a) he is a Diocesan priest of Hartford who has been pontificating from Indiana for decades, so not answerable to anyone but himself,

    b) he’s at Notre Dame, who welcomed Obama with a red carpet, and supports him,

    c) we’ll see, but I think the recently appointed Bishop of Fort Wayne, IN, even though he is reputed to be orthodox, certainly will not be able to change McBrien and Notre Dame.

    I think the Church’s only option (and I’ve thought this for a while) is that they have to take radical action (like they are doing with the feminist sisters) and just tell them “Shape up or ship out” - if you want to be Catholic you can’t be “katholic” (sounds the same, but it ain’t).

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/10/2012 10:46:46 AM PDT · 87 of 89
    koinonia to UriÂ’el-2012
    Yes, Jesus, the Creator of the universe incarnate is an example for His priests: "Come follow me" (Mt 4:19).

    I suppose St. Paul being celibate and encouraging others not to marry has no weight? I Cor 7:8, 25-35

    BTW celibacy does not produce sex scandals any more than marriage produces adultery. The problem, in both cases (and all other cases of sin), is a lack of correspondence to God's grace. Both the East (Orthodox) and West from apostolic times have always had celibate clergy and consecrated virgins. The Protestants rejected this apostolic tradition which was based on Scripture (see the link).

    In talking about married clergy, most people overlook the fact that in the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches the constant tradition has been and remains that once ordained (deacon, priest or Bishop) they cannot marry. In both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches monks and Bishops are celibate. The big difference between the two is that the Orthodox allow a man to marry before his ordination to the deaconate, if he so chooses, but again once ordained a deacon he can never marry again even if his wife dies.

    In a word, up to the 15th century the entire Christian tradition was united: after ordination, no marriage; monks and Bishops were always celibates. And the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church have continued this practice. In contrast with the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic discipline admits only celibates to the priesthood. Any man who does not feel called to celibacy should not sign up.

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/10/2012 3:45:28 AM PDT · 84 of 89
    koinonia to UriÂ’el-2012

    Jesus never married and He Himself taught that there would be disciples who would remain unmarried for the kingdom of Heaven (cfr. Mt 19:12). God bless!

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/09/2012 3:07:47 AM PDT · 74 of 89
    koinonia to Westbrook; STJPII; Ann Archy; xzins; campaignPete R-CT; grame; stonehouse01; vladimir998; ...
    To the question, 'Where in the Bible does it say that contraception is contrary to God's law?' one must understand the nature of marriage as it was intended by God "in the beginning":

    --union - "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh" (Gen 2:24)

    --procreation - "And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it" (Gen 1:28).

    The entire Bible, as Scott Hahn continually has pointed out in his conferences and writings, is centered on a covenant relationship between God and His people: "And you shall be my people: and I will be your God" (cfr. Gen 17:1-7; Ex 6:7; Lev 26:12; Dt 5:2; Jer 30:22, etc.).

    Covenant is not contract. A contract is made for an exchange of goods or services; whereas a covenant is an exchange of persons. Frequently the Bible refers to the covenant between God and His people in terms of marriage (cfr. Hosea 2:19; Is 54:5, 62:5; plus all of the parables of Jesus in reference to the kingdom of heaven as a wedding banquet and the references below).

    Based on the Scriptures, then, marriage is instituted by God as a reflection of His covenant with His people. The love (union and procreation) of husband and wife are to reflect the love of God for His bride. For Christians this is deepened through the revelation that the love of husband and wife is meant to reflect the mystery of the union of Christ the Divine Bridegroom with His Bride the Church. (2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:32; Apoc 18:23; 21:2,9 etc.)

    That said, one can readily understand Scott and Kimberly Hahn's discovery. Scott writes:

    "If married love is a sacramental sign of God's love for His people-as both testaments of the Bible testify-then the act itself must accurately reflect that love. It must be faithful, monogamous, indissoluble, and fruitful. This is the foundation of all traditional Christian sexual morality, though it will surely come as a surprise to many Christians today. I know this, because it took me completely by surprise, some twenty years ago."

    He continues...

    "Yet Christian history's overwhelming verdict on contraception arrived as news to us, as did the powerful arguments for this teaching from Scripture and moral reasoning. Confronted with the evidence, Kimberly and I felt compelled to change our lives. So we threw the contraceptives away, and soon afterward our change of theology produced a change in Kimberly's anatomy. Our first child, Michael, was on the way."
    He then points out:
    "Pope John Paul II has rightly called contraception "a lie in the language of love:" Sex... should be an oath in action, a complete gift of self, an embrace in which a man and a woman hold nothing back from one another. It is a gift of an entire life, and so it belongs only in a lifelong, exclusive marriage. It is a covenant exchange, an exchange of persons: "I am yours, and you are mine." Marriage is what makes sex sacramental and covenantal. The total gift of self rules out the possibility of divorce, adultery, premarital sex-and contraception. For contracepting couples do hold something back, and it's perhaps the single greatest power two human beings can possess: their fertility, the ability to co-create with God a new life, body and soul, destined for eternity. The sexual act says in its ecstasy: "I give you everything." But contraception renders that communication untrue.
    Read the full article here (it's well worth the time): A Lie in the Language of Love.

    If anyone is sincerely interested in deepening their Scriptural understanding of marriage, Blessed John Paul II has written beautifully and extensively on the subject. His entire series of Wednesday audiences on the Theology of the Body are readily available.

    God bless you all!

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/09/2012 2:06:01 AM PDT · 73 of 89
    koinonia to UriÂ’el-2012
    What he DID was displeasing in the sight of YHvH. That is not eisogesis, but literally what the text says.
  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/08/2012 11:18:50 AM PDT · 71 of 89
    koinonia to Mr Rogers
    The Bible is not silent on the issue and the constant Church teaching can be found, in a nutshell, here (a teaching which all Christians upheld until 1930):

    Catechism of the Catholic Church on The fecundity of marriage

    2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

    2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

    2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

    When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

    2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157

    2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

    Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/08/2012 11:09:38 AM PDT · 70 of 89
    koinonia to UriÂ’el-2012
    Scott Hahn is not posting; so you can't really accuse him of ignorance of Scripture because of my posts :-)

    At any rate, Gen 38:10 says, "And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing." It does not say that he was slain for the sin of pride or disobedience, but because the act he performed (spilling the seed) was detestable.

    I agree with you that what motivated him to do this was prideful disobedience, but he was killed by God for what he did.

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/07/2012 3:42:49 AM PDT · 66 of 89
    koinonia to kabumpo; A.A. Cunningham

    Sorry for the mistake in the title. Typing without thinking or checking carefully - and I can’t erase or change the mistake! At any rate, forgive me, forgive one another, and let’s march on together in Christ.

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/07/2012 3:39:32 AM PDT · 65 of 89
    koinonia to Mr Rogers; Running On Empty
    But I see no scriptural warrant for claiming a person using a condom is evil.

    As I just posted above, since, practically speaking, all Christians were united in condemning contraception before 1930, where in the Bible does it say that one can have relations with one's husband/wife and NOT be open to offspring? It seems to me that the burden of proof lies in showing that it is biblical to contracept.

    Blessed Sunday!

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/07/2012 12:45:57 AM PDT · 64 of 89
    koinonia to UriÂ’el-2012
    Thank you for the question: Just what are the Verses ?

    Before I respond, let me throw out the opposite question, since it seems to me that the the burden of proof lies there: Since, practically speaking, all Christians were united in condemning contraception before 1930, where in the Bible does it say that one can have relations with one's husband/wife and NOT be open to offspring? Just what are the Verses ?

    I don't say that to dodge the question, but would welcome your response.

    Now a basic response: First, one can look at Onan (Gen 38:1-10). When his brother was killed and Tamar was left a widow, Judah told him to marry her and to produce offspring. He practiced the form of contraception which today we call "withdrawal": Onan "went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing" (Gen 38:9-10).

    For Christians the marriage covenant takes on a new depth. Perhaps the most beautiful teaching on marriage in the Scriptures, a teaching which indicates how wrong contraception is, can be found in Eph 5, especially v.21-33, where St. Paul speaks of marriage as reflecting that great mystery of the spousal love of Christ the Divine Bridegroom for His Bride the Church: "This is a great sacrament (sacramentum hoc magnum); but I speak in Christ and in the church.

    St. Paul's point is that from the beginning marriage was modeled on the union of Christ with His Church: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31). And after Genesis announces this marriage covenant "God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it" (Gen 2:28).

    Contraception goes against the very nature of marriage as willed by God, and certainly does not reflect the love between Christ and the Church. Imagine a Pastor limiting the number of Baptisms in his parish saying, 'God forbid that we have a large parish family' - just the thought of it is preposterous. Christ and the Church are fruitful!

    I also think of Our Lord's very sad words as He carried the Cross towards Calvary: "But Jesus turning to them, said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the paps that have not given suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall upon us; and to the hills: Cover us" (Lk 23:30).

    Shalom also to you!

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/06/2012 11:01:28 AM PDT · 55 of 89
    koinonia to xzins

    Your comment is most welcome. The additional biographical information on Kimberly is quite interesting.

    RE: contraception being a slippery slope from “anointing oneself the determiner of the beginning of life... to deciding one is also the determiner of the end of life,” I think you hit the nail right on the head.

    It’s sad that some political leaders are on an abortion crusade - note, they are not “pro-choice,” but pro abortion, and they are promoting abortion not only policitally, but even socially. That’s pretty generic, but let me give you the specific confirmation...

    Some friends of mine from the Philippines told me that when Bill Clinton was President, to “help” get abortion legalized in the Philippines, he gave big sums of money (our tax dollars, presumably) to the President of the Philippines; immediately afterwards there was a huge spread of pornography and an unprecedented promotion of contraception. It’s really sick, but in order to get abortion legalized they first try to get the culture addicted to porn, then contraception, and then legalized abortion is just a block away.

    Similarly, their present liberal President Aquino was not pushing contraception and abortion, that is, until he had a friendly visit with Obama in 2009. Now he is pushing the agenda “to help the economy.”

    God bless you!

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 7:48:00 AM PDT · 29 of 89
    koinonia to Alex Murphy

    Hi Alex. Read the full article, they haven’t changed their story. It was just one of the landmarks (huge) in their journey that caused them to relook at the Catholic Faith. At any rate, their objective point about contraception is worth looking at objectively.

    God bless you!

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 7:42:58 AM PDT · 27 of 89
    koinonia to Vaquero
    it just does not make sense to breed like that anymore.

    I think "breed" is not the best term to use for families that were simply open to life, open to God's blessings in their marriage - whether in the Bronx or on the farm.

    It should be pointed out that God Himself has put a limit on the number of babies a couple can have (no human couple has offspring the way rabbits do, for example, who can have 6-10 every other month!), and their are natural ways (without impeding human nature) of spacing children (like breastfeeding, or abstaining during fertile periods).

    While big families had (and have) their problems, my simple question (and it's pragmatic) is this: Is our society better off because there are less children being born? I see divorce, adultery, violence, prostitution, substance abuse, addiction to pornography, etc. The problems today, after 50 years of contraception and abortion, are much worse than they were then. The sexual revolution is bearing its fruit - IMHO.

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 7:26:30 AM PDT · 25 of 89
    koinonia to taterjay
    Statistics show that even most Catholic Christians have fallen short on this score. Thanks be to God we can learn from our mistakes, repent and move on.

    Your comment reminds me of a married woman I know who, after years of taking the pill, confessed that she always felt like a prostitute... she felt used. Mind you, she and her husband were never unfaithful to one another, yet she felt the consequences of the "unnatural" aspect of the whole thing, and probably was bothered by her conscience as well.

    The ironic thing in our society is that no one seems to recognize the obvious: if you take children out of the marriage equation then the relationship, instead of being based on self-giving and fruitfulness, becomes inherently centered on self indulgence - not exactly the best centerpiece for a marriage to last!

    In my opinion the whole contraceptive mentality is to blame for all of the sexual problems of the day (and other problems as well). Simply put, if it is not about having children within marriage, then it must be about pleasure; and one can seek that pleasure when and where they prefer, that is, if it is not about having children with marriage. The results of contraception in society, although there is a lot of cover up and denial on this, are: depression, divorce, cohabitation, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, etc.

    I think it's time to wake up and smell the coffee on this point, even if this means owning up to having fallen short of the mark in the past.

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 7:07:09 AM PDT · 23 of 89
    koinonia to stonehouse01
    I enjoy pointing out the discrepancy involved in consuming only organic chemical free vegetables and then daily ingesting a powerful synthetic hormone that fools the body into thinking it’s pregnant!

    LOL. So true. That reminds me of when a friend of mine got a lot of ugly looks at a breast cancer awareness fund raiser for handing out scientific studies that clearly show that the "birth control" pill causes breast cancer. These "discrepencies" rain on their parade. They want a cure, but they don't want to look at the cause.

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 5:20:46 AM PDT · 13 of 89
    koinonia to Vaquero
    I understand your pragmatism, especially in the present economical situation and in a cultural that is not favorable to families that are consistently open to life.

    Instead of being pragmatic, the option consistently presented by the Catholic Church (and all Christians prior to the Anglican decision at the Lambeth Conferences in 1930) is to be open to life, trust in God's providence according to the Gospels - like the lilies of the field and the birds of the air - and let God decide the number of children He wants to give to a family (instead of us telling God and human nature how many children we will "plan" to have).

    As an aside, it's interesting that "birth control" is about not having births and, for many, not exercising self-control; so a sort of contradiction in terms. Likewise, "Planned Parenthood" is, in my opinion, better dubbed "Planned Barrenhood" because they certainly are not promoting having offspring. They definitely don't have a placard with this quote on it:

    Behold the inheritance of the Lord are children: the reward, the fruit of the womb. As arrows in the hand of the mighty, so the children of them that have been shaken. Blessed is the man that hath filled the desire with them; he shall not be confounded when he shall speak to his enemies in the gate. (Psalm 126:3-5)

    Just as a final thought, it is interesting to note that contraception and sterilization are, without talking about philosophy or the Bible or theology, just unnatural. I heard of a group of hippies who wanted to be "natural" and not use contraception and in seeking for others of this mindset the only outfit they found to hold their position was the Roman Catholic Church - they became Catholics and formed a lay Dominican community. (Sorry I can't find a specific reference, but it's an interesting story - not often that hippies make there way into the Catholic Church!).

    God bless you.

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 4:42:19 AM PDT · 11 of 89
    koinonia to kabumpo

    That’s my mistake, not his. :-)

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 3:48:56 AM PDT · 8 of 89
    koinonia to Westbrook
    Your tagline is beautiful, but your honesty and humility are more so. Even Scott and Kimberly had to change their lives when they discovered the beauty of this truth.

    God says, "Be fruitful and multiply;" IMHO it is the devil who says, "Be sterile and don't multiply (so I can more ready rule the world!)." The sinister Georgia Guideposts convince me of this. People like Ted Turner are publicly announcing (in the spirit of Margerat Sanger and Adolf Hitler, not to mention the global-warming crowd) that the world population needs to be severely reduced (95%!!!). Lord have mercy on our society!

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 3:28:59 AM PDT · 2 of 89
    koinonia to Salvation; NYer; marshmallow; SeekAndFind; cvq3842; St_Thomas_Aquinas; Tax-chick; ...

    ping :-)

  • Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic

    10/05/2012 3:23:01 AM PDT · 1 of 89
    koinonia
    From Wikipedia on Scott Hahn: As a young theologian, Scott Hahn was convinced that the Catholic Church was in error, and boasted of having converted some Catholics into embracing a purer Christianity. His conversion began when he and his wife became convinced that contraception was contrary to God's law. He was also bothered that the Catholic Church was the only Christian church tradition that upheld the ancient teaching of prohibiting contraception that Protestants abandoned in the 1930s.
  • Feast of the Guardian Angels

    10/05/2012 2:15:16 AM PDT · 12 of 12
    koinonia to dartuser; faucetman; Salvation
    Since Mary was sinless, and already full of grace ... does that mean she never partook of the Lords Table in communion?

    Hi. I appreciate your comment, but I'm not sure what you're getting at in your question. Do you hold that communion is only for sinners? Or am I missing something here? No sarcasm intended; just an honest question.

    At any rate, the constant tradition both in the East and the West (long before Calvin, Luther and King Henry VIII) is that Mary was sinless when she conceived Jesus. So it's not I who am making up this interpretation of "fully graced one" κεχαριτωμένη, (kecharitōménē) (Lk 1:28), but, like St. Paul, "I delivered to you first of all, what I also received...", namely, that Mary was "all holy" Παναγία, (Panagia) so as to be the worthy Mother of God Θεοτόκος ("Theotokos").

    What I don't understand, and perhaps you can help me on this one, is why anyone would insist on calling the Mother of Jesus a sinner if the Lord could have preserved His own chosen Mother from all stain of sin by the foreseen merits of His Passion, Death and Resurrection?

    God bless you! And praised be the Lord Jesus Christ!!!

  • Feast of the Guardian Angels

    10/02/2012 11:48:44 PM PDT · 10 of 12
    koinonia to faucetman; Salvation
    Hi. A queen, however powerful she may be, is always subordinate to the king. However, she is honored and has true power from the king; look at queen Bethsabee in the kingdom of Solomon: Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her [adoravitque eam - literally he adored her, in the Latin], and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand. And she said to him: I desire one small petition of thee, do not put me to confusion. And the king said to her: My mother, ask: for I must not turn away thy face. (3 Kings 2:19-20). If an earthly king can honor his mother so greatly, why not the King of kings and Lord of lords?

    At any rate, there is no "equating" Jesus and Mary here on the part of Fr. Dean (or the Catholic Church), but true honor is being given to the Queen of Heaven and earth, exalted by God Himself above all Angels and the rest of men to be His Mother.

    Regarding Mary being a sinner: Could Jesus have preserved His Mother from sin by the foreseen merits of His Passion? Was it fitting that He do so ("Honor your father and mother")? Well, that's what He did and that's why the Angel could call her the "fully graced one" κεχαριτωμένη, (kecharitōménē). If she were a big sinner (like me) the Angel would have had to say, "Hail, not so fully graced one".

    May the Lord Jesus bless you!

  • Feast of the Guardian Angels

    10/02/2012 12:26:41 PM PDT · 2 of 12
    koinonia to Salvation; NYer

    ping ;-)

  • Feast of the Guardian Angels

    10/02/2012 12:25:38 PM PDT · 1 of 12
    koinonia
    Angel of God, my Guardian dear,

    to whom God's love commits me here.

    Ever this day be at my side,

    to light, to guard, to rule and guide.

    Amen.

  • Compare the candidates: Obama, Romney, Goode (Vanity)

    09/29/2012 2:19:00 AM PDT · 290 of 324
    koinonia to D-fendr

    D-fendr, did they ever “officially” announce Breitbart’s cause of death? It sure was suspicious that he happened to die on the eve of “vetting” B.O.

  • Compare the candidates: Obama, Romney, Goode (Vanity)

    09/29/2012 1:56:08 AM PDT · 289 of 324
    koinonia to D-fendr; ArrogantBustard
    Thanks for the link. I have seen it. He says, "B.O. is a radical." Very true. But is Romney the solution?

    On Wednesday Romney said, “I have experience in health care reform [Mass Health, socialized medicine with co-pay abortions]. Now and then the president says I’m the grandfather of Obamacare. I don’t think he meant that as a compliment but I’ll take it…I’ve actually been able to put in place a system that fit the needs of the people of my state, and I’m proud of the fact that in my state, after our plan was put in place, every child has insurance, 98 percent of adults have insurance.”

    I lived under Governor Romney for 4 years in Massachusetss. Here is what he is so proud of and what he, on Wednesday, holds up as an example of "empathy and care about the people of this country"...

    I agree with ArrogantBustard: America lost when Romney was nominated, and I personally wouldn't vote for him even if I was in a swing state.

  • Compare the candidates: Obama, Romney, Goode (Vanity)

    09/29/2012 1:19:41 AM PDT · 288 of 324
    koinonia to ArrogantBustard
    America lost when R0mney was nominated.

    You got that right. And if he gets elected there will not be the possibility of a good candidate for another 8 years since he would run for re-election against Madame Clinton or some other communist in the next election.

  • Compare the candidates: Obama, Romney, Goode (Vanity)

    09/29/2012 1:04:58 AM PDT · 287 of 324
    koinonia to mnehring

    In this case, Virginia becomes a swing state. In New York or California, for example, you can vote and campaign for Romney until the cows come home and the entire electoral college will still go to B.O. A third party vote in a CLEARLY non swing state won’t affect anything. Just saying...

  • Compare the candidates: Obama, Romney, Goode (Vanity)

    09/28/2012 1:02:54 PM PDT · 252 of 324
    koinonia to koinonia; JustSayNoToNannies; D-fendr; lquist1; humblegunner; John Valentine; libdestroyer; ...
    I had to leave off replying to get back to work; and besides, it’s not every afternoon that I am called “dumb,” “insane,” “proud,” “holier than thou,” and even called a “troll” – by my fellow FReepers to boot! I needed a little break :-)

    At any rate, I’m back with two thoughts for anyone who reads this far down the comments – take them or leave them, of course:

    1. For anyone who is clearly NOT IN A SWING STATE (I’m in New York and no matter who I vote for it is well known that liberal NY City will deliver all of the electoral college votes for my state to B.O.) – since in a clearly non-swing state (dark blue or bright red) we can vote for anyone and it simply does not affect the election in the slightest, why not consider a more conservative third party vote or writing in a candidate? Just a thought. This would send a message to the GOP (who refused to listen to us!!! - the majority was against Romney in the primaries, that is if you put all of the conservative votes together: Newt, Santorum, Paul, etc.).

    2. Similarly, for anyone WHO HAS CLEARLY DECIDED THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT GOING TO VOTE for President this year, in this case, a vote for a third party candidate or a write in candidate would not change anything in the slightest (and you should definitely go to the polls to vote for your Senator, Congressman, and local officials where your vote counts more and can help save our endangered country).

    I mention these two situations because I think many of us fall into the first category and some FReepers have openly expressed the second.

    Instead of creating another post, for anyone who is interested in knowing why anyone in the world would vote for Virgil Goode who clearly has no chance to win, here is a link (4 minute video and a brief article) that captures the thoughts (more or less) of some of us: http://www.sunlituplands.org/2012/08/a-plague-on-both-their-houses-virgil.html

    God bless you, my FRiends!

  • Compare the candidates: Obama, Romney, Goode (Vanity)

    09/26/2012 2:57:25 PM PDT · 143 of 324
    koinonia to Toddsterpatriot

    Thank you. I’m glad for the update.

  • Compare the candidates: Obama, Romney, Goode (Vanity)

    09/26/2012 2:56:28 PM PDT · 142 of 324
    koinonia to D-fendr
    You say that I'm criticizing those who don’t vote as you think they should.

    I have consistently reiterated throughout my replies that I (and every American citizen) have a right and duty to vote, and a freedom to choose the candidate that I think is best for our country. So hopefully the discussion will help others to exercise that same right, duty and freedom and not feel constrained simply to vote for one of 2 candidates. They are free (and I respect this freedom) to vote for Obama or Romney; but why should they be constrained to? May God help our beloved country!