Author Topic: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016) (Read 3629 times)

Geremia · « **Reply #15 on:** April 25, 2019, 11:17:49 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on April 25, 2019, 08:50:13 AM

St Pius X came along and encouraged daily communion.

He wasn't the first to promote frequent Communion; cf. Innocent XI's cuм ad aures (February 12, 1679), quoted above.

Geremia · « **Reply #16 on:** April 25, 2019, 11:19:20 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on April 25, 2019, 09:10:01 AM

I don't know about this... either sex in lawful marriage is a good thing, designed by God, or it's evil and we shouldn't do it. Puritans and other heretics said that sex and the whole human body was evil. What is the difference between their heresy and this thinking?

Catholics don't fast from food because it's evil, but because it's good. Similarly with marriage relations.
It's easy to "sacrifice" an evil, but real sacrifices are of what is good.

Geremia · « **Reply #17 on:** April 25, 2019, 11:21:37 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on April 25, 2019, 09:07:23 AM

Maybe this advice worked back then, when immodesty wasn't literally everywhere

You think our times are the only immodest times? And what's immodesty have to do with abstaining from marital relations in order to devote time to prayer and preparation for Holy Communion?

Geremia · « **Reply #18 on:** April 25, 2019, 11:23:46 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on April 24, 2019, 10:31:28 PM

Why isn't this taught by any traditional groups? The article blames it on influence from Karl Rahner, but forget Rahner. Traditional groups don't read or consult him at all. If this was really Catholic teaching and practice, where was Archbishop Lefebvre and all the priests and religious orders he influenced?

Abp. Lefebvre, in his sermon Ordination, Sous-diaconat et Ordres mineurs - 15 mars 1975, defined marriage as a "school of continence and chastity":

Quote

Le mariage est – on pourrait le définir ainsi – une école de continence et de chasteté
[Marriage (one could define it thus) is a a school of continence and chastity]

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #19 on:** April 25, 2019, 12:00:05 PM »

Quote from: Geremia on April 25, 2019, 11:23:46 AM

Abp. Lefebvre, in his sermon Ordination, Sous-diaconat et Ordres mineurs - 15 mars 1975, defined marriage as a "school of continence and chastity":

Father Paul Trinchard taught that when a woman reaches her post menopausal days that both she and her husband should abstain from the marital embrace because she is no longer able to conceive unless a miracle happens as it did to St. Elizabeth who bore St. John the Baptist in her old age.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #20 on:** April 25, 2019, 12:04:24 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on April 25, 2019, 12:00:05 PM

Father Paul Trinchard taught that when a woman reaches her post menopausal days that both she and her husband should abstain from the marital embrace because she is no longer able to conceive unless a miracle happens as it did to St. Elizabeth who bore St. John the Baptist in her old age.

Good for him. That is not Church teaching, however. There are three ends to marriage, and as long as the first end (the begetting of children) is not positively thwarted, the martial debt may be requested without sin.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #21 on:** April 25, 2019, 12:07:21 PM »

Quote from: Geremia on April 25, 2019, 11:19:20 AM

Catholics don't fast from food because it's evil, but because it's good. Similarly with marriage relations.
It's easy to "sacrifice" an evil, but real sacrifices are of what is good.

Aye, but there are many goods from which we can choose what we will voluntarily sacrifice. It need not be food, it need not be sex. It is between each person and God. And we must not judge others for what they did or didn't choose for their sacrifice.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #22 on:** April 25, 2019, 12:51:57 PM »

Quote from: Geremia on April 24, 2019, 05:23:25 PM

Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of the Body of Christ:A Brief History
Daniel G. Van Slyke

Speaking of the marital embrace, I seem to vaguely remember you posting that your wife had physical issues that interfered with the marital embrace. You had several posts about it, prayer request(s) and a bitcoin donation address in your signature. I hate to make a mistake about something like this, so please help me out. Do I have you mixed up with someone else?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #23 on:** April 25, 2019, 07:12:53 PM »

I don't recall that myself, but if you look at his posting history it looks like he's obsessed with sex, the marital debt, Josephite marriages, divorce and remarriage, invalid marriage, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, sodomy within marriage, NFP, contraception, pregnancy, sɛҳuąƖ abstinence, concupiscence and similar topics. Even his interest in theology seems connected to sex, for example "Sts. Anne's and Joachim's sɛҳuąƖ act"

https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/st-thomas-affirming-the-immaculate-conception!/

I don't think his fixation on sex is very healthy or holy.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #24 on:** April 25, 2019, 07:24:46 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on April 25, 2019, 07:12:53 PM

I don't think his fixation on sex is very healthy or holy.

As it always goes. Whenever someone calls for chastity he is always accused of being a pervert. And everyone remains a slave to sex and as slaves they delude themselves into thinking they are holy.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #25 on:** April 25, 2019, 08:12:28 PM »

I think it is worth remembering that traditional Christian thought (at a time when all western Christians were Catholic) was that sex was for procreation and that to do it for any other purpose was sinful.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #26 on:** April 25, 2019, 10:05:12 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on April 25, 2019, 08:47:48 AM

Hold on now, we receive Communion every week. Abstinence of any length over 7 days, much less 14 days, would mean permanent abstinence. So there's no way that would ever even be suggested, as the point of marriage is to have children which would be completely impossible under such a rule. Therefore I think there's a lot of important context here you must be leaving out.

Most people only received communion a handful of times a year in the middle ages up to Pius X. Many saints only received communion 3,6,12 etc times per year, those numbers were from whatever religious order or region they were in. The idea that taking communion every sunday as a normality has only been present in the early church and Pius X to the present.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #27 on:** May 04, 2019, 07:23:25 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on April 25, 2019, 07:12:53 PM

I don't recall that myself, but if you look at his posting history it looks like he's obsessed with sex, the marital debt, Josephite marriages, divorce and remarriage, invalid marriage, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, sodomy within marriage, NFP, contraception, pregnancy, sɛҳuąƖ abstinence, concupiscence and similar topics. Even his interest in theology seems connected to sex, for example "Sts. Anne's and Joachim's sɛҳuąƖ act"

https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/st-thomas-affirming-the-immaculate-conception!/

I don't think his fixation on sex is very healthy or holy.

I see Geremia is choosing to ignore this. Just now he posted about a saint. About a saint vowing virginity that is. There's that topic again. Very curious for a married man to be so obsessed with sex and all topics touching on it.

Nadir · « **Reply #28 on:** May 04, 2019, 11:02:57 PM »

Very charitable and brave of you to pry into the personal life of a named poster anonymously!

It seems you may be obsessed with the private life of another poster. I would regard such issues as a private matter.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #29 on:** May 04, 2019, 11:30:50 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on May 04, 2019, 07:23:25 PM

a saint vowing virginity that is. There's that topic again. Very curious for a married man to be so obsessed with sex and all topics touching on it.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, was married and highly praised virginity and its beauty. Does that make him "obsessed with sex and all topics touching on it," too?

Author Topic: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016) (Read 3629 times)

Geremia

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body

Geremia

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Geremia

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Geremia

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Nadir

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)

Änσnymσus

Re: Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of Body of ☧” (2016)