Rudd’s third argument for the Catholic Church’s “flawed, incomplete, and destructive” understanding of Marriage is titled, “Birth Control”. Rudd continues:
III. Birth Control:
Roman Catholic church [sic] has a prohibition against birth control. Such is as [sic] anti-Biblical [sic] as it is hypocritical. This prohibition is again based upon an incomplete definition of the purpose of marriage. Hypocritically, the Roman Catholic church [sic] actually teaches birth control is OK [sic], as long as it involves nothing artificial like condoms, pills etc. [sic] The average Roman Catholic married woman is instructed to use the rhythm method where she takes her body temperature to determine the day she ovulates. Then she avoids sex for two days before and after her ovulation day. But this is not only hypocritical double talk, [sic] since birth control is the act of having sex without the desire for children, it contradicts the entire foundation upon which the Roman Catholic church [sic] forbade birth control in the first place: There [sic] are only two purposes of marriage. Since the Pope [sic] teaches the only time you can have sex is to make children, then the only time a Catholic woman could have sex, [sic] is during her “three fertile days” of the month. The Roman Catholic position on birth control is shown to be silly and outrageous because Catholic “pew dwellers” generally ignore such man made [sic] rules from leaders, who themselves are not married. But if a Catholic did follow the teaching of the Pope [sic], then she would use the thermometer to determine when she ovulates and have sex only during that fertile 4 [sic] day window. Continue reading
Rudd’s second argument for the Catholic Church’s “flawed, incomplete, and destructive” understanding of Marriage is titled, “Guilt”. Rudd continues:
Rather than sex being a wonderful communion between husband and wife to fulfill the sexual desire, The [sic] Roman Catholic view, if anyone actually listened to it, would make married partners feel guilty and dirty for having sex, for the sole purpose of a “good romp in the hay”. Continue reading
Like Restorationism, Fundamentalism is a relatively modern Protestant movement, and it was developed within a larger Americanized construct of what Marriage ought to be. That is, Marriage and its more-Americanized (thus, more-secularized) purposes were woven into American Fundamentalism’s newly-formed fabric.
The movement, remember, began as a reaction to liberal theology within Protestantism. However, the end synthesis of its understanding of Marriage—whether it pre-dates liberal Protestantism or not—is, in fact, a liberalized / secularized hybrid product of Christian Marriage and the pursuit of carnal satisfaction disjoined from the original procreative and unitive purposes of the Sacrament. Steve Rudd’s outline perfectly illustrates Fundamentalism’s understanding of not only its position, but also how it contrasts with Catholicism’s understanding of Marriage. Rudd begins: Continue reading
Most of this website has been specifically addressed to members of the Protestant Church of Christ. This series about Marriage (capitalized as a sacrament), however, is understood by other types of Protestants the same way. And for me to best illustrate how the Catholic understanding is more reasonable, I will compare it to Fundamentalism, which overlaps the Protestant Church of Christ’s beliefs almost perfectly. And therefore, within this series, I will refer to both groups—Restorationist and Fundamentalist—with the same overlapping (and more prominent) descriptor: Fundamentalist. Continue reading
The Real Church’s sex scandals are horrible. Honest Catholics admit it.
People suck, but Judas Iscariot never discredited the Church. Unfortunately, opportunistic Fundamentalist sects jump on the historical Church to, in some bizarre effort, somehow discredit her theology (brilliant). Some in the religion business even teach that scandal and sexual deviance is institutionalized in the Catholic Church (double brilliant).
I was going to turn this into a small book, but I’ve decided to throw it on this site and include a version of it in my next large volume. I will use popular Protestant Church of Christ propaganda website bible.ca (Steve Rudd’s project) as material to PROVE how the Catholic Church of Christ’s understanding of Marriage and sex is more biblical than the Protestant Church of Christ’s (COC). AND, because I’m really good at this stuff, explain how the COC’s foundational theological assumption regarding Marriage is what institutionalizes its hybrid Christian/worldly beliefs.
Credit to Steve Rudd’s CofC propaganda site for this gem; perfectly illustrating CofC hubris.
Ministers and laypeople of the Protestant Church of Christ,
You often profess pride in your lack of a creed, but you utilize a creed-like mantra as both a statement of belief and a disparaging commentary on Christians who do confess a creed. “No creed but the Bible”, however, does not communicate the self-affirming Restorationist wish for “biblical Christianity”; what it does is offer a proof of how, in itself, the Catholic Church is more plausible, more reasonable: Christian.
“No creed but the Bible” is a creed! It is a statement of faith that the Bible – however interpreted – contains the body of doctrine that provides the necessary knowledge for accessing the means of salvation. Your stated belief portrays a dependence on, an acknowledgement of, a subordination to, a conduit of truth – truth that is, of course, subject to the private interpretation of any person who proudly professes the creedless creed. After all, “creed” means “belief”. A person who has no creed has no belief. In other words, the mantra is a never-ending circular justification of one’s own belief. Put differently, the Protestant Church of Christ’s “creed” (its “belief”), is, “We believe what we interpret the Bible to mean”. More accurately, it means, “What we believe is what we teach.” Continue reading