Has the Catholic church lost control

[Cracklin']

Cardinal Bernardin, chairman of the American bishops’ Committee for
Pro-Life Activities, asserts that abortion is a moral wrong and that the
official stand of the church is binding on all Roman Catholics. Again,
Roman Catholic professor of moral theology at Notre Dame University in
the United States, James T. Burtchaell, wrote in 1982: “My argument is
straightforward. Abortion is homicide: the destruction of a child.” Yet,
four years later, priest Richard P. McBrien, chairman of the theology
department of the same university, took pains to explain that abortion
is not a defined doctrine of his church. According to this view,
Catholics who subscribe to abortion cannot be excommunicated, even
though they may be viewed as being disloyal.

On account of this ambiguity of church authority, many prominent
Catholics are outspokenly pro-abortion. Included among them in the
United States are some priests. Also a number of nuns, some of whom
endorsed a controversial abortion newspaper advertisement for which they
were threatened with expulsion from their orders.

Additionally, lay Catholics now form an active pro-abortion lobby. “I am
in the mainstream of Catholic lay thought,” asserted Mrs. Eleanor C.
Smeal, president of NOW, the National Organization for Women, at an
abortion rally in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. At the same time, according
to The New York Times, she mocked the suggestion that her support for
the right to abortion could lead to her excommunication from the Roman
Catholic Church.

The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve such
conflicting views within its ranks.

[Mike Painter]

Cracklin' wrote:
> Cardinal Bernardin, chairman of the American bishops’ Committee for
> Pro-Life Activities, asserts that abortion is a moral wrong and that
> the official stand of the church is binding on all Roman Catholics.
> Again, Roman Catholic professor of moral theology at Notre Dame
> University in the United States, James T. Burtchaell, wrote in 1982:
> “My argument is straightforward. Abortion is homicide: the
> destruction of a child.” Yet, four years later, priest Richard P.
> McBrien, chairman of the theology department of the same university,
> took pains to explain that abortion is not a defined doctrine of his
> church. According to this view, Catholics who subscribe to abortion
> cannot be excommunicated, even though they may be viewed as being
> disloyal.
> On account of this ambiguity of church authority, many prominent
> Catholics are outspokenly pro-abortion. Included among them in the
> United States are some priests. Also a number of nuns, some of whom
> endorsed a controversial abortion newspaper advertisement for which
> they were threatened with expulsion from their orders.
>
> Additionally, lay Catholics now form an active pro-abortion lobby. “I
> am in the mainstream of Catholic lay thought,” asserted Mrs. Eleanor
> C. Smeal, president of NOW, the National Organization for Women, at an
> abortion rally in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. At the same time, according
> to The New York Times, she mocked the suggestion that her support for
> the right to abortion could lead to her excommunication from the Roman
> Catholic Church.
>
> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
> such conflicting views within its ranks.

That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such matters. Only
things in the past like the assumption of Mary.
The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather than a
group infallible there was a schism.

Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next moderate to
liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost certainly approve birth
control in marriage.
Abortion will come along sooner or later.
The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell for
when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week in the case
of meat on Friday)

[duke]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:21:20 -0400, Cracklin' > wrote:

>The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve such
>conflicting views within its ranks.

Not really. We don't need the Church to tell us that a human fetus does not
become a dog.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:59:19 GMT, "Mike Painter" >

>> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
>> such conflicting views within its ranks.

>That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such matters. Only
>things in the past like the assumption of Mary.

Very much is an typical mikey error mode. Ex-cathedra is for matters not
clearly defined in scripture. If you had attended a Catholic school, you'd know
that, mikey.

>The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather than a
>group infallible there was a schism.

The rules have never changed. When was the last schism?

But I forget - you never were a Catholic, so you wouldn't know.

>Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next moderate to
>liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost certainly approve birth
>control in marriage.

Don't hold your breath.

>Abortion will come along sooner or later.

Never on this one. It's directly contrary to God's word. The only way to
approve this one is to find another name for this failed church.

>The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell for
>when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week in the case
>of meat on Friday)

Required act of penance, but no dogma.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[bam]

"Cracklin'" > wrote in message
...
> Cardinal Bernardin, chairman of the American bishops’ Committee for
> Pro-Life Activities, asserts that abortion is a moral wrong and that the
> official stand of the church is binding on all Roman Catholics. Again,
> Roman Catholic professor of moral theology at Notre Dame University in the
> United States, James T. Burtchaell, wrote in 1982: “My argument is
> straightforward. Abortion is homicide: the destruction of a child.” Yet,
> four years later, priest Richard P. McBrien, chairman of the theology
> department of the same university, took pains to explain that abortion is
> not a defined doctrine of his church. According to this view, Catholics
> who subscribe to abortion cannot be excommunicated, even though they may
> be viewed as being disloyal.

McBrien is a liberal priest - he has no power outside of the ministerial
duties. He's free to babble in academia all he wants, though.


> On account of this ambiguity of church authority, many prominent Catholics
> are outspokenly pro-abortion. Included among them in the United States are
> some priests. Also a number of nuns, some of whom endorsed a controversial
> abortion newspaper advertisement for which they were threatened with
> expulsion from their orders.

A small, small, minority - politicians for the most part. Just a bunch of
hogwash.

BAM

[JCarew]

JMJ

"Cracklin'" wrote in message

>Cardinal Bernardin, chairman of the American bishops' Committee for
>Pro-Life Activities, asserts that abortion is a moral wrong and that the
>official stand of the church is binding on all Roman Catholics. Again,
>Roman Catholic professor of moral theology at Notre Dame University in
>the United States, James T. Burtchaell, wrote in 1982: "My argument is
>straightforward. Abortion is homicide: the destruction of a child." Yet,
>four years later, priest Richard P. McBrien, chairman of the theology
>department of the same university, took pains to explain that abortion
>is not a defined doctrine of his church. According to this view,
>Catholics who subscribe to abortion cannot be excommunicated, even
>though they may be viewed as being disloyal.


"The 1983 Code of Canon Law" contains the
following provision with regards to abortion:

Title VI

>snip<

Can. 1398 -- A person who procures a successful
abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae)
excommunication.

[The Latin original reads: Can. 1398 -- Qui
abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in
excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit.]

>snip<

Jim Carew sfo

[Paul Duca]

in article , duke at
wrote on 7/26/05 6:21 PM:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:59:19 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
>
>>> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
>>> such conflicting views within its ranks.
>
>> That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such matters. Only
>> things in the past like the assumption of Mary.
>
> Very much is an typical mikey error mode. Ex-cathedra is for matters not
> clearly defined in scripture. If you had attended a Catholic school, you'd
> know
> that, mikey.
>
>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather than a
>> group infallible there was a schism.
>
> The rules have never changed. When was the last schism?
>
> But I forget - you never were a Catholic, so you wouldn't know.
>
>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next moderate to
>> liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost certainly approve birth
>> control in marriage.
>
> Don't hold your breath.
>
>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>
> Never on this one. It's directly contrary to God's word. The only way to
> approve this one is to find another name for this failed church.
>
>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell for
>> when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week in the case
>> of meat on Friday)
>
> Required act of penance, but no dogma.
>



The church will never me, since I don't aspire to the fetid and
festing pile of dog vomit it calls "eternal reward"...


Paul

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:59:19 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> >
>
>>> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
>>> such conflicting views within its ranks.
>
>> That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such
>> matters. Only things in the past like the assumption of Mary.
>
> Very much is an typical mikey error mode. Ex-cathedra is for matters
> not clearly defined in scripture. If you had attended a Catholic
> school, you'd know that, mikey.

You still have a chance to be $5,000.00 richer if you are right and have
the courage of your conviction.
The cowardly little man will not take the offer.
>
>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather
>> than a group infallible there was a schism.
>
> The rules have never changed. When was the last schism?

This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last major one was
in 1871 when the pope declared that he was infalliable instead of the
magisterium.

>
> But I forget - you never were a Catholic, so you wouldn't know
>
>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next
>> moderate to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost certainly
>> approve birth control in marriage.
>
> Don't hold your breath.
I don't have to, it is alreadly allowed in some parts of the world.
>
>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>
> Never on this one. It's directly contrary to God's word. The only
> way to approve this one is to find another name for this failed
> church.

They said the same thing about touching the host.


>
>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell
>> for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week
>> in the case of meat on Friday)
>
> Required act of penance, but no dogma.

Meat on Friday and touching the host were mortal sins.

[duke]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:25:42 -0400, Paul Duca > wrote:

>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell for
>>> when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week in the case
>>> of meat on Friday)

>> Required act of penance, but no dogma.

> The church will never me, since I don't aspire to the fetid and
>festing pile of dog vomit it calls "eternal reward"...
>Paul

Your funeral.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:39:39 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:

>You still have a chance to be $5,000.00 richer if you are right and have
>the courage of your conviction.
>The cowardly little man will not take the offer.

You had your chance. Too bad you were too paranoid about following thru.

>>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather
>>> than a group infallible there was a schism.
>> The rules have never changed. When was the last schism?

>This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last major one was
>in 1871 when the pope declared that he was infalliable instead of the
>magisterium.

Schism?

>>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next
>>> moderate to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost certainly
>>> approve birth control in marriage.

>> Don't hold your breath.
>I don't have to, it is alreadly allowed in some parts of the world.

Nope.

>>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.

>> Never on this one. It's directly contrary to God's word. The only
>> way to approve this one is to find another name for this failed
>> church.
>They said the same thing about touching the host.

Not dogma.

>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell
>>> for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week
>>> in the case of meat on Friday)
>> Required act of penance, but no dogma.
>Meat on Friday and touching the host were mortal sins.

Neither dogma.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[ReelMcKoi]

duke wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:21:20 -0400, Cracklin' > wrote:
>
> >The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve such
> >conflicting views within its ranks.
>
> Not really. We don't need the Church to tell us that a human fetus does not
> become a dog.
>

funny, some evolutionsts believes this to be the case, in a manner of
speaking.

[Dom]

Mike Painter wrote:
> duke wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:59:19 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > >
....
> >> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather
> >> than a group infallible there was a schism.
> >
> > The rules have never changed. When was the last schism?
>
> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last major one was
> in 1871 when the pope declared that he was infalliable instead of the
> magisterium.

The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led to
the schism of the Old Catholics. For a detailed analysis of the
shameless manner in which Vatican I was conducted, and of how the
passage of the infallibility dogma was orchestrated, I would recommend
the book by the Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler: "HOW THE POPE
BECAME INFALLIBLE: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuation," Doubleday
(1981) [translation of "WIE DER PAPST UNFEHLBAR WURDE: Macht und
Ohnmacht eines Dogmas," R. Piper & Co. Verlag (1979)].

Domenico Rosa

[Dom]

JCarew wrote:
> JMJ
> "Cracklin'" wrote in message
>
> >... Yet,
> >four years later, priest Richard P. McBrien, chairman of the theology
> >department of the same university, took pains to explain that abortion
> >is not a defined doctrine of his church. According to this view,
> >Catholics who subscribe to abortion cannot be excommunicated, even
> >though they may be viewed as being disloyal.
>
>
> "The 1983 Code of Canon Law" contains the
> following provision with regards to abortion:
>
> Title VI
>
> >snip<
>
> Can. 1398 -- A person who procures a successful
> abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae)
> excommunication.
>
> [The Latin original reads: Can. 1398 -- Qui
> abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in
> excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit.]

The above provision applies to a person who obtains an abortion, not to
one's position on Roe v. Wade. Many years ago, when the (Connecticut)
Catholic Transcript still carried his column, McBrien discussed the
writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on the distinction between civil laws,
which are always changing, and moral laws, which are eternal.
Consequently, sometimes one must take positions about civil laws
contrary to one's moral values.

Domenico Rosa

[bam]

"Dom" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> JCarew wrote:
>> JMJ
>> "Cracklin'" wrote in message
>>
>> >... Yet,
>> >four years later, priest Richard P. McBrien, chairman of the theology
>> >department of the same university, took pains to explain that abortion
>> >is not a defined doctrine of his church. According to this view,
>> >Catholics who subscribe to abortion cannot be excommunicated, even
>> >though they may be viewed as being disloyal.
>>
>>
>> "The 1983 Code of Canon Law" contains the
>> following provision with regards to abortion:
>>
>> Title VI
>>
>> >snip<
>>
>> Can. 1398 -- A person who procures a successful
>> abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae)
>> excommunication.
>>
>> [The Latin original reads: Can. 1398 -- Qui
>> abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in
>> excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit.]
>
> The above provision applies to a person who obtains an abortion, not to
> one's position on Roe v. Wade. Many years ago, when the (Connecticut)
> Catholic Transcript still carried his column, McBrien discussed the
> writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on the distinction between civil laws,
> which are always changing, and moral laws, which are eternal.
> Consequently, sometimes one must take positions about civil laws
> contrary to one's moral values.


That's ridiculous.

BAM

[Paul Duca]

in article , duke at
wrote on 7/27/05 6:25 PM:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:25:42 -0400, Paul Duca > wrote:
>
>>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell for
>>>> when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week in the case
>>>> of meat on Friday)
>
>>> Required act of penance, but no dogma.
>
>> The church will never me, since I don't aspire to the fetid and
>> festing pile of dog vomit it calls "eternal reward"...
>> Paul
>
> Your funeral.
>



Your dumpster...



Paul

[Fr. Admin]

In article >, Cracklin'
> wrote:

> Cardinal Bernardin, chairman of the American bishops’ Committee for
> Pro-Life Activities, asserts that abortion is a moral wrong and that the
> official stand of the church is binding on all Roman Catholics. Again,
> Roman Catholic professor of moral theology at Notre Dame University in
> the United States, James T. Burtchaell, wrote in 1982: “My argument is
> straightforward. Abortion is homicide: the destruction of a child.” Yet,
> four years later, priest Richard P. McBrien, chairman of the theology
> department of the same university, took pains to explain that abortion
> is not a defined doctrine of his church. According to this view,
> Catholics who subscribe to abortion cannot be excommunicated, even
> though they may be viewed as being disloyal.
>
> On account of this ambiguity of church authority, many prominent
> Catholics are outspokenly pro-abortion. Included among them in the
> United States are some priests. Also a number of nuns, some of whom
> endorsed a controversial abortion newspaper advertisement for which they
> were threatened with expulsion from their orders.
>
> Additionally, lay Catholics now form an active pro-abortion lobby. “I am
> in the mainstream of Catholic lay thought,” asserted Mrs. Eleanor C.
> Smeal, president of NOW, the National Organization for Women, at an
> abortion rally in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. At the same time, according
> to The New York Times, she mocked the suggestion that her support for
> the right to abortion could lead to her excommunication from the Roman
> Catholic Church.
>
> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve such
> conflicting views within its ranks.

You know - while its quite true that there are Catholic dissidents,
there's really no point to your posted message; and it does your
'point' little credence to lead with a sentence that seems to indicate
that Cardinal Bernardin - who has been dead since 1996 - is the
"chairman of the American bishops..."

--
+ Fr. Admin

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:39:39 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > wrote:
>
>> You still have a chance to be $5,000.00 richer if you are right and
>> have the courage of your conviction.
>> The cowardly little man will not take the offer.
>
> You had your chance. Too bad you were too paranoid about following
> thru.
You can't even keep your lies straight.
You made excuses but we all know the real reasons. We would know who you are
and you know you are wrong.

>
>>>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope
>>>> rather than a group infallible there was a schism.
>>> The rules have never changed. When was the last schism?
>
>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last major
>> one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was infalliable
>> instead of the magisterium.
>
> Schism?

Yes.


>
>>>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next
>>>> moderate to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost
>>>> certainly approve birth control in marriage.
>
>>> Don't hold your breath.
>> I don't have to, it is alreadly allowed in some parts of the world.
>
> Nope.

Specifically FATHER DAVID MEDOW (St. Mary Immaculate Church, Illinois) is a
married, with children Roman Catholic priest.
In general it is not un common and becoming moe common.
Prior to the 12 century it was common.
The Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic Church allows it today,

So the proper answer is Yep.

>
>>>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>
>>> Never on this one. It's directly contrary to God's word. The only
>>> way to approve this one is to find another name for this failed
>>> church.
>> They said the same thing about touching the host.
>
> Not dogma.

Neither is priest not marrying or anything else they decide on.

>
>>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to
>>>> hell for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once
>>>> a week in the case of meat on Friday)
>>> Required act of penance, but no dogma.
>> Meat on Friday and touching the host were mortal sins.
>
> Neither dogma.
>

[duke]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:01:13 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:

>> You had your chance. Too bad you were too paranoid about following
>> thru.

>You can't even keep your lies straight.
>You made excuses but we all know the real reasons. We would know who you are
>and you know you are wrong.

Sorry, mikey, but you had your chance, and blew it.

>> Schism?
>Yes.

Is that like apple pie?

>>>> Don't hold your breath.
>>> I don't have to, it is alreadly allowed in some parts of the world.
>> Nope.

>Specifically FATHER DAVID MEDOW (St. Mary Immaculate Church, Illinois) is a
>married, with children Roman Catholic priest.
>In general it is not un common and becoming moe common.
>Prior to the 12 century it was common.
>The Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic Church allows it today,

So it's a different Rite?

>So the proper answer is Yep.

Nope, not in my Chruch.

>>>>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>>>> Never on this one. It's directly contrary to God's word. The only
>>>> way to approve this one is to find another name for this failed
>>>> church.
>>> They said the same thing about touching the host.
>> Not dogma.
>Neither is priest not marrying or anything else they decide on.

Unmarried priests was never dogma.

>>>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to
>>>>> hell for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once
>>>>> a week in the case of meat on Friday)
>>>> Required act of penance, but no dogma.
>>> Meat on Friday and touching the host were mortal sins.
>>
>> Neither dogma.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" > wrote:

>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last major one was
>> in 1871 when the pope declared that he was infalliable instead of the
>> magisterium.

>The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led to
>the schism of the Old Catholics.

Still not a rule change.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[DanielSan]

duke wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:01:13 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>You had your chance. Too bad you were too paranoid about following
>>>thru.
>
>
>>You can't even keep your lies straight.
>>You made excuses but we all know the real reasons. We would know who you are
>>and you know you are wrong.
>
>
> Sorry, mikey, but you had your chance, and blew it.

But, duke, your name's not "mikey."


>
>
>>>Schism?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> Is that like apple pie?

Only when the peaches rebel.

--

************************************************** **
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
************************************************** **

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" > wrote:
>
>>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last major
>>> one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was infalliable
>>> instead of the magisterium.
>
>> The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led
>> to the schism of the Old Catholics.
>
> Still not a rule change.
The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by himself was
not infallible.

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:01:13 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > wrote:
>
>>> You had your chance. Too bad you were too paranoid about following
>>> thru.
>
>> You can't even keep your lies straight.
>> You made excuses but we all know the real reasons. We would know who
>> you are and you know you are wrong.
>
> Sorry, mikey, but you had your chance, and blew it.

I proved my point. You are a cowardly little man afraid to admit even where
you went to school and afraid to back your convictions lest we find out who
you really are.

Others are aware of the efforts you made to ignore the wager


>
>>> Schism?
>> Yes.
>
> Is that like apple pie?
>
>>>>> Don't hold your breath.
>>>> I don't have to, it is alreadly allowed in some parts of the world.
>>> Nope.
>
>> Specifically FATHER DAVID MEDOW (St. Mary Immaculate Church,
>> Illinois) is a married, with children Roman Catholic priest.
>> In general it is not un common and becoming moe common.
>> Prior to the 12 century it was common.
>> The Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic Church allows it today,
>
> So it's a different Rite?
It is the Roman Catholic church with the same Pope as the one you
acknowledge.
>
>> So the proper answer is Yep.
>
> Nope, not in my Chruch.
"Specifically FATHER DAVID MEDOW (St. Mary Immaculate Church, Illinois) is a
married, with children Roman Catholic priest."

Then your church is not the one the pope recognizes.
(Illinois is in the USA Earl.)



>
>>>>>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>>>>> Never on this one. It's directly contrary to God's word. The
>>>>> only way to approve this one is to find another name for this
>>>>> failed church.
>>>> They said the same thing about touching the host.
>>> Not dogma.
>> Neither is priest not marrying or anything else they decide on.
>
> Unmarried priests was never dogma.
>
>>>>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to
>>>>>> hell for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once
>>>>>> a week in the case of meat on Friday)
>>>>> Required act of penance, but no dogma.
>>>> Meat on Friday and touching the host were mortal sins.
>>>
>>> Neither dogma.
>
>
> duke
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****

[Fritzz]

"Mike Painter" > wrote in message
. ..
> Cracklin' wrote:
>> Cardinal Bernardin, chairman of the American bishops' Committee for
>> Pro-Life Activities, asserts that abortion is a moral wrong and that
>> the official stand of the church is binding on all Roman Catholics.
>> Again, Roman Catholic professor of moral theology at Notre Dame
>> University in the United States, James T. Burtchaell, wrote in 1982:
>> "My argument is straightforward. Abortion is homicide: the
>> destruction of a child." Yet, four years later, priest Richard P.
>> McBrien, chairman of the theology department of the same university,
>> took pains to explain that abortion is not a defined doctrine of his
>> church. According to this view, Catholics who subscribe to abortion
>> cannot be excommunicated, even though they may be viewed as being
>> disloyal.
>> On account of this ambiguity of church authority, many prominent
>> Catholics are outspokenly pro-abortion. Included among them in the
>> United States are some priests. Also a number of nuns, some of whom
>> endorsed a controversial abortion newspaper advertisement for which
>> they were threatened with expulsion from their orders.
>>
>> Additionally, lay Catholics now form an active pro-abortion lobby. "I
>> am in the mainstream of Catholic lay thought," asserted Mrs. Eleanor
>> C. Smeal, president of NOW, the National Organization for Women, at an
>> abortion rally in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. At the same time, according
>> to The New York Times, she mocked the suggestion that her support for
>> the right to abortion could lead to her excommunication from the Roman
>> Catholic Church.
>>
>> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
>> such conflicting views within its ranks.
>
> That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such matters. Only
> things in the past like the assumption of Mary.
> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather than
> a group infallible there was a schism.
>
> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next moderate
> to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost certainly approve birth
> control in marriage.
> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell for
> when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week in the
> case of meat on Friday)

Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils of
contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the Church.

There are those who try to claim that the Church's teaching against
Contraception is relatively new. That is not true. On the contrary, the
Church's teaching against Contraception is as old as the Church.

During the time of the Infant Church in the Roman Empire, there were two
companion evil practices commonly found throughout the Roman Empire - which
the Church equally condemned;

1. Contraception, and
2. Abortion

The earliest teaching Document of the Church about Faith and Morals was the
"DICACHE". It was begun about the year 80. It was revised again later, and
was being used by the Church throughout the world by the year 125. [We know
that because archeologists have found copies of the DIDACHE dating from that
time, from most of the major Church sites of the time.

The Infant Church used this Document to instruct Catechumens in the
teachings of the Church.

That Document, the DIDACHE, condemns Abortion as mortally sinful, and an
offense for which someone is excommunicated from the Church. They placed it
right alongside baby-killing/infanticide, and all other forms of murder. And
they condemned Contraception in the same breath.

The question is, why did the Church place Contraception alongside Abortion
as a sin? Why did they treat Abortion and Contraception as companion sins.

St. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church go into this in some depth. As
St. Augustine tells us from the early 4th century, the still common 'Pagan'
practice of his time, was for women to go to a practitioner of Pharmakei,
and buy herbs to keep from conceiving.

By the way, the word Pharmakei means "poisoner". These herbs contained
natural contraceptive drugs/poisons which to a high degree stopped
conception.

But, as Augustine tells us, when such women conceived despite the
contraceptive herbs they had placed in their vagina, then they went back to
the "poisoner", to buy herbs with which to kill the baby.

As Augustine points out, no Christian can have anything to do with either
contraception or abortion.

There is nothing new about either Contraception or Abortion. And there is
nothing new about the Church's teaching that both are gravely sinful.

Now you know the rest of the story.

[Fritzz]

"Mike Painter" > wrote in message
...
> duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:39:39 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> You still have a chance to be $5,000.00 richer if you are right and
>>> have the courage of your conviction.
>>> The cowardly little man will not take the offer.
>>
>> You had your chance. Too bad you were too paranoid about following
>> thru.
> You can't even keep your lies straight.
> You made excuses but we all know the real reasons. We would know who you
> are and you know you are wrong.
>
>>
>>>>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope
>>>>> rather than a group infallible there was a schism.
>>>> The rules have never changed. When was the last schism?
>>
>>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last major
>>> one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was infalliable
>>> instead of the magisterium.
>>
>> Schism?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>>>>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next
>>>>> moderate to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost
>>>>> certainly approve birth control in marriage.
>>
>>>> Don't hold your breath.
>>> I don't have to, it is alreadly allowed in some parts of the world.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Specifically FATHER DAVID MEDOW (St. Mary Immaculate Church, Illinois) is
> a married, with children Roman Catholic priest.
> In general it is not un common and becoming moe common.
> Prior to the 12 century it was common.
> The Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic Church allows it today,

We are Eastern Rite and NOT part of the Roman Catholic Church. We are in
COMMUNION with the Roman Catholic Church. There is a big difference.

> So the proper answer is Yep.
>
>>
>>>>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>>
>>>> Never on this one. It's directly contrary to God's word. The only
>>>> way to approve this one is to find another name for this failed
>>>> church.
>>> They said the same thing about touching the host.
>>
>> Not dogma.
>
> Neither is priest not marrying or anything else they decide on.
>
>>
>>>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to
>>>>> hell for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once
>>>>> a week in the case of meat on Friday)
>>>> Required act of penance, but no dogma.
>>> Meat on Friday and touching the host were mortal sins.
>>
>> Neither dogma.
>>
>
>
>

[Mike Painter]

Fritzz wrote:
> "Mike Painter" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>>
>>> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
>>> such conflicting views within its ranks.
>>
>> That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such
>> matters. Only things in the past like the assumption of Mary.
>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather
>> than a group infallible there was a schism.
>>
>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next
>> moderate to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost certainly
>> approve birth control in marriage.
>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell
>> for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week
>> in the case of meat on Friday)
>
> Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
> Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils of
> contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the Church.

It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a marriage if
the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act has to have as a
specific goal pregnancy.
Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.


"To summarize: when one compares the 1917 Catholic view of marriage -
"procreation" as a primary end, "a remedy for concupiscence" as a secondary
end - with the 1969 view expressed in both the Vatican Council and encoded
in canon law - "the community of the whole life" that includes both the
"unbreakable compact between persons" as well as the "welfare of the
children," one can see that the change in Catholic doctrine and law has been
nothing short of astonishing."

"On October 29, 1951 came a second important innovation in Catholic views.
In one of the most insignificant settings possible - i.e., not an encyclical
or synod but rather an address to Italian midwives - Pius XII suggested that
couples, as long as they did not use "artificial" contraception, could
arrive at a moral decision to be sexually active in a way that did not lead
to procreation. "

Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the right
hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
Now it gets dropped into your hand.
I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.

>
> There are those who try to claim that the Church's teaching against
> Contraception is relatively new. That is not true. On the contrary,
> the Church's teaching against Contraception is as old as the Church.
>
> During the time of the Infant Church in the Roman Empire, there were
> two companion evil practices commonly found throughout the Roman
> Empire - which the Church equally condemned;
>
> 1. Contraception, and
> 2. Abortion
>
> The earliest teaching Document of the Church about Faith and Morals
> was the "DICACHE". It was begun about the year 80. It was revised
> again later, and was being used by the Church throughout the world by
> the year 125. [We know that because archeologists have found copies
> of the DIDACHE dating from that time, from most of the major Church
> sites of the time.

>
> The Infant Church used this Document to instruct Catechumens in the
> teachings of the Church.
>
> That Document, the DIDACHE, condemns Abortion as mortally sinful, and
> an offense for which someone is excommunicated from the Church. They
> placed it right alongside baby-killing/infanticide, and all other
> forms of murder. And they condemned Contraception in the same breath.
>
> The question is, why did the Church place Contraception alongside
> Abortion as a sin? Why did they treat Abortion and Contraception as
> companion sins.
> St. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church go into this in some
> depth. As St. Augustine tells us from the early 4th century, the
> still common 'Pagan' practice of his time, was for women to go to a
> practitioner of Pharmakei, and buy herbs to keep from conceiving.
>
> By the way, the word Pharmakei means "poisoner". These herbs contained
> natural contraceptive drugs/poisons which to a high degree stopped
> conception.
>
> But, as Augustine tells us, when such women conceived despite the
> contraceptive herbs they had placed in their vagina, then they went
> back to the "poisoner", to buy herbs with which to kill the baby.
>
> As Augustine points out, no Christian can have anything to do with
> either contraception or abortion.
>
> There is nothing new about either Contraception or Abortion. And
> there is nothing new about the Church's teaching that both are
> gravely sinful.
> Now you know the rest of the story.

Which is interesting but started to change in 1951.

[duke]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:50:13 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:

>> Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
>> Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils of
>> contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the Church.

>It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a marriage if
>the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act has to have as a
>specific goal pregnancy.

Maybe you'd like to explain your second sentence.

>Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
>impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.

Nope. Artificial means are not acceptable.

>"To summarize: when one compares the 1917 Catholic view of marriage -
>"procreation" as a primary end, "a remedy for concupiscence" as a secondary
>end - with the 1969 view expressed in both the Vatican Council and encoded
>in canon law - "the community of the whole life" that includes both the
>"unbreakable compact between persons" as well as the "welfare of the
>children," one can see that the change in Catholic doctrine and law has been
>nothing short of astonishing."

>"On October 29, 1951 came a second important innovation in Catholic views.
>In one of the most insignificant settings possible - i.e., not an encyclical
>or synod but rather an address to Italian midwives - Pius XII suggested that
>couples, as long as they did not use "artificial" contraception, could
>arrive at a moral decision to be sexually active in a way that did not lead
>to procreation. "

>Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the right
>hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
>Now it gets dropped into your hand.
>I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.

Nope, now people have clean hands.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[DanielSan]

duke wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:50:13 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
>>>Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils of
>>>contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the Church.
>
>
>>It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a marriage if
>>the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act has to have as a
>>specific goal pregnancy.
>
>
> Maybe you'd like to explain your second sentence.

Some sex acts (if you had had any) are purely for recreational purposes.

>
>
>>Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
>>impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.
>
>
> Nope. Artificial means are not acceptable.

According to which Bible verse? Which Bible verse expressly condemns
the use of dildos and vibrators? :-)


--

************************************************** **
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
************************************************** **

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:50:13 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
>>> Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils
>>> of contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the
>>> Church.
>
>> It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a
>> marriage if the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act
>> has to have as a specific goal pregnancy.
>
> Maybe you'd like to explain your second sentence.

Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to reproduce.
Even within your life time priests told people that the *only* reason to
have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do it for fun.

>
>> Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
>> impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.
>
> Nope. Artificial means are not acceptable.

Today.

>
>> "To summarize: when one compares the 1917 Catholic view of marriage -
>> "procreation" as a primary end, "a remedy for concupiscence" as a
>> secondary end - with the 1969 view expressed in both the Vatican
>> Council and encoded in canon law - "the community of the whole life"
>> that includes both the "unbreakable compact between persons" as well
>> as the "welfare of the children," one can see that the change in
>> Catholic doctrine and law has been nothing short of astonishing."
>
>> "On October 29, 1951 came a second important innovation in Catholic
>> views. In one of the most insignificant settings possible - i.e.,
>> not an encyclical or synod but rather an address to Italian midwives
>> - Pius XII suggested that couples, as long as they did not use
>> "artificial" contraception, could arrive at a moral decision to be
>> sexually active in a way that did not lead to procreation. "
>
>> Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the
>> right hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
>> Now it gets dropped into your hand.
>> I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.
>
> Nope, now people have clean hands.

That's just stupid. Unless your nuns were stupider than I think you were
taught that a priest was the only person to touch the host and only with the
consecrated thumb and fore finger of the right hand.
Not the left, just the right.

St. Thomas Aquinas: ". because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the
Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the
corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands,
for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it,
except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or
else in some other case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

http://www.tldm.org/News5/banCinH.htm
http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/communion-hand.htm

A Google search on _touching consecrated host _ will yield a ton of hits and
show the concern Catholics have about this practice.
They are apparently no longer completely concerned with angels on pinheads
(the steel ones.)
>
>
> duke
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****

[•€R.L.Measures]

In article >, "Mike Painter"
> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:50:13 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
>>>> Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils
>>>> of contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the
>>>> Church.
>>
>>> It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a
>>> marriage if the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act
>>> has to have as a specific goal pregnancy.
>>
>> Maybe you'd like to explain your second sentence.
>
>Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to reproduce.
>Even within your life time priests told people that the *only* reason to
>have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do it for fun.
>
>>
>>> Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
>>> impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.
>>
>> Nope. Artificial means are not acceptable.
>
>Today.

** Tuday is all they know because they weren't around when popes said
abortion was acceptable under certain circumstances.

* "Unlearned in history, they allow themselves to be governed by the
Unknown Past." -
- Historian John Acton
> ...

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

[duke]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:44:03 GMT, DanielSan > wrote:

>>>It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a marriage if
>>>the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act has to have as a
>>>specific goal pregnancy.
>> Maybe you'd like to explain your second sentence.
>Some sex acts (if you had had any) are purely for recreational purposes.

Now where do you see the word "artificial"?


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:43:35 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:

>Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to reproduce.
>Even within your life time priests told people that the *only* reason to
>have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do it for fun.

Now tell me again where this is written down.

>>> Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
>>> impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.
>> Nope. Artificial means are not acceptable.
>Today.

Never were.

>>> Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the
>>> right hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
>>> Now it gets dropped into your hand.
>>> I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.
>> Nope, now people have clean hands.

>That's just stupid. Unless your nuns were stupider than I think you were
>taught that a priest was the only person to touch the host and only with the
>consecrated thumb and fore finger of the right hand.
>Not the left, just the right.

You never ever stopped to think about that one, did you?

>St. Thomas Aquinas: ". because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the
>Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the
>corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands,
>for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it,
>except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or
>else in some other case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

That's what I said.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:43:35 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > wrote:
>
>> Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
>> reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that the
>> *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do
>> it for fun.
>
> Now tell me again where this is written down.

Forgotten already have we?

Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for
itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."

It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"

>
>>>> Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
>>>> impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.
>>> Nope. Artificial means are not acceptable.
>> Today.
>
> Never were.
>
>>>> Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the
>>>> right hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
>>>> Now it gets dropped into your hand.
>>>> I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.
>>> Nope, now people have clean hands.
>
>> That's just stupid. Unless your nuns were stupider than I think you
>> were taught that a priest was the only person to touch the host and
>> only with the consecrated thumb and fore finger of the right hand.
>> Not the left, just the right.
>
> You never ever stopped to think about that one, did you?

>
>> St. Thomas Aquinas: ". because out of reverence towards this
>> sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is
>> consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and
>> likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it
>> is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for
>> instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other
>> case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).
>
> That's what I said.

No, you said "Nope, now people have clean hands."


>
> duke
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****

[Fritzz]

"Mike Painter" > wrote in message
m...
> Fritzz wrote:
>> "Mike Painter" > wrote in message
>> . ..
> >>>
>>>> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
>>>> such conflicting views within its ranks.
>>>
>>> That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such
>>> matters. Only things in the past like the assumption of Mary.
>>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope rather
>>> than a group infallible there was a schism.
>>>
>>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next
>>> moderate to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost certainly
>>> approve birth control in marriage.
>>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to hell
>>> for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once a week
>>> in the case of meat on Friday)
>>
>> Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
>> Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils of
>> contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the Church.
>
> It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a marriage
> if the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act has to have as a
> specific goal pregnancy.
> Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
> impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.

Source, please.

> "To summarize: when one compares the 1917 Catholic view of marriage -
> "procreation" as a primary end, "a remedy for concupiscence" as a
> secondary end - with the 1969 view expressed in both the Vatican Council
> and encoded in canon law - "the community of the whole life" that includes
> both the "unbreakable compact between persons" as well as the "welfare of
> the children," one can see that the change in Catholic doctrine and law
> has been nothing short of astonishing."
>
> "On October 29, 1951 came a second important innovation in Catholic views.
> In one of the most insignificant settings possible - i.e., not an
> encyclical or synod but rather an address to Italian midwives - Pius XII
> suggested that couples, as long as they did not use "artificial"
> contraception, could arrive at a moral decision to be sexually active in a
> way that did not lead to procreation. "

I'd have to see this to believe it. Give me a source.

>
> Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the right
> hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
> Now it gets dropped into your hand.
> I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.


You come to my Church for Liturgy, you will not be allowed to touch the
Eucharistic Christ. It is on the tongue or not at all. Note, I'm not Latin
Rite and we haven't changed.


>
>>
>> There are those who try to claim that the Church's teaching against
>> Contraception is relatively new. That is not true. On the contrary,
>> the Church's teaching against Contraception is as old as the Church.
>>
>> During the time of the Infant Church in the Roman Empire, there were
>> two companion evil practices commonly found throughout the Roman
>> Empire - which the Church equally condemned;
>>
>> 1. Contraception, and
>> 2. Abortion
>>
>> The earliest teaching Document of the Church about Faith and Morals
>> was the "DICACHE". It was begun about the year 80. It was revised
>> again later, and was being used by the Church throughout the world by
>> the year 125. [We know that because archeologists have found copies
>> of the DIDACHE dating from that time, from most of the major Church
>> sites of the time.
>
>>
>> The Infant Church used this Document to instruct Catechumens in the
>> teachings of the Church.
>>
>> That Document, the DIDACHE, condemns Abortion as mortally sinful, and
>> an offense for which someone is excommunicated from the Church. They
>> placed it right alongside baby-killing/infanticide, and all other
>> forms of murder. And they condemned Contraception in the same breath.
>>
>> The question is, why did the Church place Contraception alongside
>> Abortion as a sin? Why did they treat Abortion and Contraception as
>> companion sins.
>> St. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church go into this in some
>> depth. As St. Augustine tells us from the early 4th century, the
>> still common 'Pagan' practice of his time, was for women to go to a
>> practitioner of Pharmakei, and buy herbs to keep from conceiving.
>>
>> By the way, the word Pharmakei means "poisoner". These herbs contained
>> natural contraceptive drugs/poisons which to a high degree stopped
>> conception.
>>
>> But, as Augustine tells us, when such women conceived despite the
>> contraceptive herbs they had placed in their vagina, then they went
>> back to the "poisoner", to buy herbs with which to kill the baby.
>>
>> As Augustine points out, no Christian can have anything to do with
>> either contraception or abortion.
>>
>> There is nothing new about either Contraception or Abortion. And
>> there is nothing new about the Church's teaching that both are
>> gravely sinful.
>> Now you know the rest of the story.
>
> Which is interesting but started to change in 1951.

I'm not sure what part of the Catholic Church you are from; however, it is
forbidden in mine.

[Mike Painter]

Fritzz wrote:
> "Mike Painter" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Fritzz wrote:
>>> "Mike Painter" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>> >>>
>>>>> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
>>>>> such conflicting views within its ranks.
>>>>
>>>> That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such
>>>> matters. Only things in the past like the assumption of Mary.
>>>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope
>>>> rather than a group infallible there was a schism.
>>>>
>>>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next
>>>> moderate to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost
>>>> certainly approve birth control in marriage.
>>>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to
>>>> hell for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once
>>>> a week in the case of meat on Friday)
>>>
>>> Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
>>> Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils
>>> of contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the
>>> Church.
>>
>> It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a
>> marriage if the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act
>> has to have as a specific goal pregnancy.
>> Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
>> impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.
>
> Source, please.

Hard to find on the web but http://members.aol.com/revising/law.html covers
it in general and the last few questions imply what I have been saying.
You'll have to do your own digging to validate the following:
1. Pope Paul VI did not relax birth control because the vote was not
unanimous...
2. Pope John Paul I "said he was going to allow birth control... "
"In 1966, there was a Papal Commission on Birth Control. It voted 30-5 to
relax the concerns on birth control. But in 1968, Pope Paul VI in Humanae
Vitae reiterated the anti-birth-control stance. He said this was necessary
because the commission was not unanimous, that governments could force
sterilization if sterilization was "ok", and that men who used women for sex
would lose respect for them. His final point is that God created sex to
create children - and that man should not interfere with this system.
The ban includes all impediments with the sexual act - sterilization,
withdrawl, the pill, condoms, etc. Note that the rhythm method (not having
sex on certain days with the intent to avoid child-making) which once WAS
banned is now considered to be OK. The church called this "Natural Family
Planning". However there are priests who still argue that the rhythm
method - since it involves sex for pleasure while trying to avoid kids - is
therefore wrong. Even abstinence in a marriage is apparently wrong, since
married people should follow God's will to try to have children.

When Pope Paul VI died in 1978, Pope John Paul I was elected. He only lasted
33 days before dying in mysterious conditions - after he said he was going
to allow birth control and do a sweeping reform of the Vatican. "



>
>> "To summarize: when one compares the 1917 Catholic view of marriage -
>> "procreation" as a primary end, "a remedy for concupiscence" as a
>> secondary end - with the 1969 view expressed in both the Vatican
>> Council and encoded in canon law - "the community of the whole life"
>> that includes both the "unbreakable compact between persons" as well
>> as the "welfare of the children," one can see that the change in
>> Catholic doctrine and law has been nothing short of astonishing."
>>
>> "On October 29, 1951 came a second important innovation in Catholic
>> views. In one of the most insignificant settings possible - i.e.,
>> not an encyclical or synod but rather an address to Italian midwives
>> - Pius XII suggested that couples, as long as they did not use
>> "artificial" contraception, could arrive at a moral decision to be
>> sexually active in a way that did not lead to procreation. "
>
> I'd have to see this to believe it. Give me a source.
http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm
>
>>
>> Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the
>> right hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
>> Now it gets dropped into your hand.
>> I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.
>
>
> You come to my Church for Liturgy, you will not be allowed to touch
> the Eucharistic Christ. It is on the tongue or not at all. Note,
> I'm not Latin Rite and we haven't changed.

Then your church does not follow the teachings of Rome. You're not alone.

Personally I think arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the
head of a pin to be of more concern than what happens to the christ crumbs.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> There are those who try to claim that the Church's teaching against
>>> Contraception is relatively new. That is not true. On the contrary,
>>> the Church's teaching against Contraception is as old as the Church.
>>>
>>> During the time of the Infant Church in the Roman Empire, there were
>>> two companion evil practices commonly found throughout the Roman
>>> Empire - which the Church equally condemned;
>>>
>>> 1. Contraception, and
>>> 2. Abortion
>>>
>>> The earliest teaching Document of the Church about Faith and Morals
>>> was the "DICACHE". It was begun about the year 80. It was revised
>>> again later, and was being used by the Church throughout the world
>>> by the year 125. [We know that because archeologists have found
>>> copies of the DIDACHE dating from that time, from most of the major
>>> Church sites of the time.
>>
>>>
>>> The Infant Church used this Document to instruct Catechumens in the
>>> teachings of the Church.
>>>
>>> That Document, the DIDACHE, condemns Abortion as mortally sinful,
>>> and an offense for which someone is excommunicated from the Church.
>>> They placed it right alongside baby-killing/infanticide, and all
>>> other forms of murder. And they condemned Contraception in the same
>>> breath. The question is, why did the Church place Contraception
>>> alongside
>>> Abortion as a sin? Why did they treat Abortion and Contraception as
>>> companion sins.
>>> St. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church go into this in some
>>> depth. As St. Augustine tells us from the early 4th century, the
>>> still common 'Pagan' practice of his time, was for women to go to a
>>> practitioner of Pharmakei, and buy herbs to keep from conceiving.
>>>
>>> By the way, the word Pharmakei means "poisoner". These herbs
>>> contained natural contraceptive drugs/poisons which to a high
>>> degree stopped conception.
>>>
>>> But, as Augustine tells us, when such women conceived despite the
>>> contraceptive herbs they had placed in their vagina, then they went
>>> back to the "poisoner", to buy herbs with which to kill the baby.
>>>
>>> As Augustine points out, no Christian can have anything to do with
>>> either contraception or abortion.
>>>
>>> There is nothing new about either Contraception or Abortion. And
>>> there is nothing new about the Church's teaching that both are
>>> gravely sinful.
>>> Now you know the rest of the story.
>>>> Which is interesting but started to change in 1951.
>
> I'm not sure what part of the Catholic Church you are from; however,
> it is forbidden in mine.

I'm an atheist. The main body of the RCC allows it and has since 1980.

DOMINICAE CENAE (On The Mystery And Worship Of The Eucharist) Pope John
Paul II

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2DOMIN.HTM

"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been
introduced"

[duke]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:14:37 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:

>>> Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
>>> reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that the
>>> *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do
>>> it for fun.
>> Now tell me again where this is written down.
>Forgotten already have we?

>Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for
>itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."

But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.

>It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"

ie, artificial.

>>> St. Thomas Aquinas: ". because out of reverence towards this
>>> sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is
>>> consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and
>>> likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it
>>> is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for
>>> instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other
>>> case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).
>> That's what I said.
>No, you said "Nope, now people have clean hands."

People didn't wash their hands then. Priests did.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[•€R.L.Measures]

In article >, "Mike Painter"
> wrote:

>Fritzz wrote:
>> "Mike Painter" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Fritzz wrote:
>>>> "Mike Painter" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>> >>>
>>>>>>...
>2. Pope John Paul I "said he was going to allow birth control... "
>"In 1966, there was a Papal Commission on Birth Control. It voted 30-5 to
>relax the concerns on birth control. But in 1968, Pope Paul VI in Humanae
>Vitae reiterated the anti-birth-control stance. He said this was necessary
>because the commission was not unanimous, that governments could force
>sterilization if sterilization was "ok", and that men who used women for sex
>would lose respect for them. His final point is that God created sex to
>create children - and that man should not interfere with this system.
>The ban includes all impediments with the sexual act - sterilization,
>withdrawl, the pill, condoms, etc. Note that the rhythm method (not having
>sex on certain days with the intent to avoid child-making) which once WAS
>banned is now considered to be OK. The church called this "Natural Family
>Planning". However there are priests who still argue that the rhythm
>method - since it involves sex for pleasure while trying to avoid kids - is
>therefore wrong. Even abstinence in a marriage is apparently wrong, since
>married people should follow God's will to try to have children.
>
>When Pope Paul VI died in 1978, Pope John Paul I was elected. He only lasted
>33 days before dying in mysterious conditions - after he said he was going
>to allow birth control and do a sweeping reform of the Vatican. "
>
• The part of Luciano Albini's (alias John Paul I) reforms that
apparently caused the most apprehension in the Curia was his announcement
that on the morrow he would sign the authorization for a forensic audit of
the Vatican bank -- a.k.a., "The Institute for Religious Works" -- what
the Dade County (Florida) D. A. had determined was the largest money
laundry of cocaine profits for the Colombian drug cartel. Albini had a
snack of fresh strawberries before he went to bed, but during the night he
dropped dead. (ref: Yallop, David A. "In God's Name" - An Investigation
Into the Murder of Pope John Paul I, Bantam Books, Inc., June 1984).
>
>
>>
>>> "To summarize: when one compares the 1917 Catholic view of marriage -
>>> "procreation" as a primary end, "a remedy for concupiscence" as a
>>> secondary end - with the 1969 view expressed in both the Vatican
>>> Council and encoded in canon law - "the community of the whole life"
>>> that includes both the "unbreakable compact between persons" as well
>>> as the "welfare of the children," one can see that the change in
>>> Catholic doctrine and law has been nothing short of astonishing."
>>>
>>> "On October 29, 1951 came a second important innovation in Catholic
>>> views. In one of the most insignificant settings possible - i.e.,
>>> not an encyclical or synod but rather an address to Italian midwives
>>> - Pius XII suggested that couples, as long as they did not use
>>> "artificial" contraception, could arrive at a moral decision to be
>>> sexually active in a way that did not lead to procreation. "
>>
>> I'd have to see this to believe it. Give me a source.
>http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm
>>
>>>
>>> Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the
>>> right hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
>>> Now it gets dropped into your hand.
>>> I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.
>>
>>
>> You come to my Church for Liturgy, you will not be allowed to touch
>> the Eucharistic Christ. It is on the tongue or not at all. Note,
>> I'm not Latin Rite and we haven't changed.
>
>Then your church does not follow the teachings of Rome. You're not alone.
>
>Personally I think arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the
>head of a pin to be of more concern than what happens to the christ crumbs.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are those who try to claim that the Church's teaching against
>>>> Contraception is relatively new. That is not true. On the contrary,
>>>> the Church's teaching against Contraception is as old as the Church.
>>>>
>>>> During the time of the Infant Church in the Roman Empire, there were
>>>> two companion evil practices commonly found throughout the Roman
>>>> Empire - which the Church equally condemned;
>>>>
>>>> 1. Contraception, and
>>>> 2. Abortion
>>>>
>>>> The earliest teaching Document of the Church about Faith and Morals
>>>> was the "DICACHE". It was begun about the year 80. It was revised
>>>> again later, and was being used by the Church throughout the world
>>>> by the year 125. [We know that because archeologists have found
>>>> copies of the DIDACHE dating from that time, from most of the major
>>>> Church sites of the time.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Infant Church used this Document to instruct Catechumens in the
>>>> teachings of the Church.
>>>>
>>>> That Document, the DIDACHE, condemns Abortion as mortally sinful,
>>>> and an offense for which someone is excommunicated from the Church.
>>>> They placed it right alongside baby-killing/infanticide, and all
>>>> other forms of murder. And they condemned Contraception in the same
>>>> breath. The question is, why did the Church place Contraception
>>>> alongside
>>>> Abortion as a sin? Why did they treat Abortion and Contraception as
>>>> companion sins.
>>>> St. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church go into this in some
>>>> depth. As St. Augustine tells us from the early 4th century, the
>>>> still common 'Pagan' practice of his time, was for women to go to a
>>>> practitioner of Pharmakei, and buy herbs to keep from conceiving.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the word Pharmakei means "poisoner". These herbs
>>>> contained natural contraceptive drugs/poisons which to a high
>>>> degree stopped conception.
>>>>
>>>> But, as Augustine tells us, when such women conceived despite the
>>>> contraceptive herbs they had placed in their vagina, then they went
>>>> back to the "poisoner", to buy herbs with which to kill the baby.
>>>>
>>>> As Augustine points out, no Christian can have anything to do with
>>>> either contraception or abortion.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing new about either Contraception or Abortion. And
>>>> there is nothing new about the Church's teaching that both are
>>>> gravely sinful.
>>>> Now you know the rest of the story.
>>>>> Which is interesting but started to change in 1951.
>>
>> I'm not sure what part of the Catholic Church you are from; however,
>> it is forbidden in mine.
>
>I'm an atheist. The main body of the RCC allows it and has since 1980.
>
> DOMINICAE CENAE (On The Mystery And Worship Of The Eucharist) Pope John
>Paul II
>
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2DOMIN.HTM
>
>"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been
>introduced"

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:14:37 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
>>>> reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that the
>>>> *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do
>>>> it for fun.
>>> Now tell me again where this is written down.
>> Forgotten already have we?
>
>> Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
>> sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
>> purposes."
>
> But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.
>
>> It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"
>
> ie, artificial.

See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed out the
"AND" part.

I guess Earl is so used to getting just an egg when he orders "ham and eggs"
that he never will understand


>
>>>> St. Thomas Aquinas: ". because out of reverence towards this
>>>> sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is
>>>> consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated,
>>>> and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament.
>>>> Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from
>>>> necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or
>>>> else in some other case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82,
>>>> Art. 13).
>>> That's what I said.
>> No, you said "Nope, now people have clean hands."
>
> People didn't wash their hands then. Priests did.
>
Which has nothing to do with what I quoted or the argument agaist the
practice.

[Fritzz]

"Mike Painter" > wrote in message
.. .
> Fritzz wrote:
>> "Mike Painter" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Fritzz wrote:
>>>> "Mike Painter" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>> >>>
>>>>>> The Church of Rome is finding it increasingly difficult to resolve
>>>>>> such conflicting views within its ranks.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why you'll never see a pope speak ex-cathedra on such
>>>>> matters. Only things in the past like the assumption of Mary.
>>>>> The last time they changed the rules, when they made the Pope
>>>>> rather than a group infallible there was a schism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marriage of priests will be allowed sooner or later and the next
>>>>> moderate to liberal (relatively speaking) pope will almost
>>>>> certainly approve birth control in marriage.
>>>>> Abortion will come along sooner or later.
>>>>> The RCC has survived by changing and several things you went to
>>>>> hell for when I was a kid are every day occurrences now. (Or once
>>>>> a week in the case of meat on Friday)
>>>>
>>>> Marriage of priest may happen, as priest marry in Eastern Church.
>>>> Contraception, never. The teaching of the Church against the evils
>>>> of contraception is one of the oldest 'doctrinal' issues in the
>>>> Church.
>>>
>>> It's already been put forth. That contraception can be used in a
>>> marriage if the overall intent is to procreate. Not every sex act
>>> has to have as a specific goal pregnancy.
>>> Since they already allow sex during times when pregnancy is almost
>>> impossible there is some grounds for it in place already.
>>
>> Source, please.
>
> Hard to find on the web but http://members.aol.com/revising/law.html
> covers it in general and the last few questions imply what I have been
> saying.
> You'll have to do your own digging to validate the following:
> 1. Pope Paul VI did not relax birth control because the vote was not
> unanimous...
> 2. Pope John Paul I "said he was going to allow birth control... "
> "In 1966, there was a Papal Commission on Birth Control. It voted 30-5 to
> relax the concerns on birth control. But in 1968, Pope Paul VI in Humanae
> Vitae reiterated the anti-birth-control stance. He said this was necessary
> because the commission was not unanimous, that governments could force
> sterilization if sterilization was "ok", and that men who used women for
> sex would lose respect for them. His final point is that God created sex
> to create children - and that man should not interfere with this system.
> The ban includes all impediments with the sexual act - sterilization,
> withdrawl, the pill, condoms, etc. Note that the rhythm method (not having
> sex on certain days with the intent to avoid child-making) which once WAS
> banned is now considered to be OK. The church called this "Natural Family
> Planning". However there are priests who still argue that the rhythm
> method - since it involves sex for pleasure while trying to avoid kids -
> is therefore wrong. Even abstinence in a marriage is apparently wrong,
> since married people should follow God's will to try to have children.
>
> When Pope Paul VI died in 1978, Pope John Paul I was elected. He only
> lasted 33 days before dying in mysterious conditions - after he said he
> was going to allow birth control and do a sweeping reform of the Vatican.
> "
>
>
>
>>
>>> "To summarize: when one compares the 1917 Catholic view of marriage -
>>> "procreation" as a primary end, "a remedy for concupiscence" as a
>>> secondary end - with the 1969 view expressed in both the Vatican
>>> Council and encoded in canon law - "the community of the whole life"
>>> that includes both the "unbreakable compact between persons" as well
>>> as the "welfare of the children," one can see that the change in
>>> Catholic doctrine and law has been nothing short of astonishing."
>>>
>>> "On October 29, 1951 came a second important innovation in Catholic
>>> views. In one of the most insignificant settings possible - i.e.,
>>> not an encyclical or synod but rather an address to Italian midwives
>>> - Pius XII suggested that couples, as long as they did not use
>>> "artificial" contraception, could arrive at a moral decision to be
>>> sexually active in a way that did not lead to procreation. "
>>
>> I'd have to see this to believe it. Give me a source.
> http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm
>>
>>>
>>> Touching the host with anything but two consacrated fingers of the
>>> right hand - and your mouth - used to be a mortal sin.
>>> Now it gets dropped into your hand.
>>> I would suggest that's a bigger change than using a rubber.
>>
>>
>> You come to my Church for Liturgy, you will not be allowed to touch
>> the Eucharistic Christ. It is on the tongue or not at all. Note,
>> I'm not Latin Rite and we haven't changed.
>
> Then your church does not follow the teachings of Rome. You're not alone.
>
> Personally I think arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the
> head of a pin to be of more concern than what happens to the christ
> crumbs.

We are in communion with Rome; however, we follow the teachings of our
Patriarch. We also have a completely different Liturgy than the Latins.
Ours is in Aramaic. M'shlomo (Peace)!


>>>>
>>>> There are those who try to claim that the Church's teaching against
>>>> Contraception is relatively new. That is not true. On the contrary,
>>>> the Church's teaching against Contraception is as old as the Church.
>>>>
>>>> During the time of the Infant Church in the Roman Empire, there were
>>>> two companion evil practices commonly found throughout the Roman
>>>> Empire - which the Church equally condemned;
>>>>
>>>> 1. Contraception, and
>>>> 2. Abortion
>>>>
>>>> The earliest teaching Document of the Church about Faith and Morals
>>>> was the "DICACHE". It was begun about the year 80. It was revised
>>>> again later, and was being used by the Church throughout the world
>>>> by the year 125. [We know that because archeologists have found
>>>> copies of the DIDACHE dating from that time, from most of the major
>>>> Church sites of the time.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Infant Church used this Document to instruct Catechumens in the
>>>> teachings of the Church.
>>>>
>>>> That Document, the DIDACHE, condemns Abortion as mortally sinful,
>>>> and an offense for which someone is excommunicated from the Church.
>>>> They placed it right alongside baby-killing/infanticide, and all
>>>> other forms of murder. And they condemned Contraception in the same
>>>> breath. The question is, why did the Church place Contraception
>>>> alongside
>>>> Abortion as a sin? Why did they treat Abortion and Contraception as
>>>> companion sins.
>>>> St. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church go into this in some
>>>> depth. As St. Augustine tells us from the early 4th century, the
>>>> still common 'Pagan' practice of his time, was for women to go to a
>>>> practitioner of Pharmakei, and buy herbs to keep from conceiving.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the word Pharmakei means "poisoner". These herbs
>>>> contained natural contraceptive drugs/poisons which to a high
>>>> degree stopped conception.
>>>>
>>>> But, as Augustine tells us, when such women conceived despite the
>>>> contraceptive herbs they had placed in their vagina, then they went
>>>> back to the "poisoner", to buy herbs with which to kill the baby.
>>>>
>>>> As Augustine points out, no Christian can have anything to do with
>>>> either contraception or abortion.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing new about either Contraception or Abortion. And
>>>> there is nothing new about the Church's teaching that both are
>>>> gravely sinful.
>>>> Now you know the rest of the story.
>>>>> Which is interesting but started to change in 1951.
>>
>> I'm not sure what part of the Catholic Church you are from; however,
>> it is forbidden in mine.
>
> I'm an atheist. The main body of the RCC allows it and has since 1980.
>
> DOMINICAE CENAE (On The Mystery And Worship Of The Eucharist) Pope John
> Paul II
>
> http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2DOMIN.HTM
>
> "In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has
> been introduced"
>

[duke]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:59:08 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" > wrote:
>>
>>>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last major
>>>> one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was infalliable
>>>> instead of the magisterium.
>>
>>> The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led
>>> to the schism of the Old Catholics.
>>
>> Still not a rule change.

>The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by himself was
>not infallible.

And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:

>>>>> Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
>>>>> reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that the
>>>>> *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do
>>>>> it for fun.
>>>> Now tell me again where this is written down.
>>> Forgotten already have we?

>>> Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
>>> sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
>>> purposes."

>> But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.
>>> It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"

>> ie, artificial.

>See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed out the
>"AND" part.

You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't relate to
the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being valid and unitive in
purpose.

The sexual act is unitive even when it isn't procreative. God made it that way.
Artificial contraception reduces the unitive to pleasure for the satisfaction of
other than procreative and/or unitive.

You can bs your little atheist buddies, mikey, but I'm too smart for you.

>I guess Earl is so used to getting just an egg when he orders "ham and eggs"
>that he never will understand

Gotcha.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[•€R.L.Measures]

In article >, duke
> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
>wrote:
>
>>>>>> Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
>>>>>> reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that the
>>>>>> *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do
>>>>>> it for fun.
>>>>> Now tell me again where this is written down.
>>>> Forgotten already have we?
>
>>>> Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
>>>> sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
>>>> purposes."
>
>>> But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.
>>>> It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"
>
>>> ie, artificial.
>
>>See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed out the
>>"AND" part.
>
>You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't relate to
>the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being valid and unitive in
>purpose.
>
• If a woman has two functioning ovaries and she is not pregnant, there
is no such thing as her non-orocreative period -- especially if she has an
orgasm during coitus. [ref: Dr. Jane Comfort "The Facts of Love".]

Even Saint Augustine realized that a woman can get pregnant during her
menstrual period:

- "Defective children will result if conceived during menstruation. Women
should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should be
segregated because they are the cause of unholy erections in holy men."
- Saint Augustine (354-430)

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

[Paul Duca]

in article , duke at
wrote on 8/2/05 8:38 PM:

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
>>>>>> reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that the
>>>>>> *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to jst do
>>>>>> it for fun.
>>>>> Now tell me again where this is written down.
>>>> Forgotten already have we?
>
>>>> Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
>>>> sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
>>>> purposes."
>
>>> But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.
>>>> It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"
>
>>> ie, artificial.
>
>> See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed out the
>> "AND" part.
>
> You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't relate to
> the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being valid and unitive in
> purpose.
>
> The sexual act is unitive even when it isn't procreative. God made it that
> way, to keep Woman under Man's thumb...or other body part.
>

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > wrote:
>
>>>>>> Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
>>>>>> reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that
>>>>>> the *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to
>>>>>> jst do it for fun.
>>>>> Now tell me again where this is written down.
>>>> Forgotten already have we?
>
>>>> Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
>>>> sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
>>>> purposes." But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of
>>>> infertility. It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive
>>>> purposes"
>
>>> ie, artificial.
>
>> See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed
>> out the "AND" part.
>
> You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't
> relate to the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being
> valid and unitive in purpose.

It's the church that makes these statements, not me.

>
> The sexual act is unitive even when it isn't procreative. God made
> it that way. Artificial contraception reduces the unitive to pleasure
> for the satisfaction of other than procreative and/or unitive.
>
Irrelevant to what the RCC says.

> You can bs your little atheist buddies, mikey, but I'm too smart for
> you.
>
>> I guess Earl is so used to getting just an egg when he orders "ham
>> and eggs" that he never will understand
>
> Gotcha.

Sure Earl, enjoy your egg.

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:59:08 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
>>>>> major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
>>>>> infalliable instead of the magisterium.
>>>
>>>> The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led
>>>> to the schism of the Old Catholics.
>>>
>>> Still not a rule change.
>
>> The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
>> himself was not infallible.
>
> And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".

He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first
vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at
the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55
abstaining. "
602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder where
those 112 people went?

[•€R.L.Measures]

In article >, "Mike Painter"
> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:51:45 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Until recent times the sole purpose of marriage and sex was to
>>>>>>> reproduce. Even within your life time priests told people that
>>>>>>> the *only* reason to have sex was to impregnate a female, not to
>>>>>>> jst do it for fun.
>>>>>> Now tell me again where this is written down.
>>>>> Forgotten already have we?
>>
>>>>> Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
>>>>> sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
>>>>> purposes." But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of
>>>>> infertility. It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive
>>>>> purposes"
>>
>>>> ie, artificial.
>>
>>> See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed
>>> out the "AND" part.
>>
>> You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't
>> relate to the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being
>> valid and unitive in purpose.
>
>It's the church that makes these statements, not me.
>
** The net result of the church's NFP is an increased supply of potential
altar-boys.
>>...

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

[•€R.L.Measures]

In article >, "Mike Painter"
> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:59:08 GMT, "Mike Painter"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
>>>>>> major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
>>>>>> infalliable instead of the magisterium.
>>>>
>>>>> The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led
>>>>> to the schism of the Old Catholics.
>>>>
>>>> Still not a rule change.
>>
>>> The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
>>> himself was not infallible.
>>
>> And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".
>
>He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
>"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first
>vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at
>the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55
>abstaining. "
>602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder where
>those 112 people went?

** To a local cat house that had a Monday Special?

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

[Dom]

..
Mike Painter wrote:
> duke wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:59:08 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> duke wrote:
> >>> On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
> >>>>> major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
> >>>>> infalliable instead of the magisterium.
> >>>
> >>>> The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it led
> >>>> to the schism of the Old Catholics.
> >>>
> >>> Still not a rule change.
> >
> >> The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
> >> himself was not infallible.
> >
> > And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".
>
> He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
> "In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first
> vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at
> the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55
> abstaining. "
> 602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder where
> those 112 people went?

Many bishops left Rome before the final vote because they did not want
to vote against Pius IX. For more details, read the book by the
Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler: "HOW THE POPE BECAME
INFALLIBLE: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuation," Doubleday (1981)
[translation of "WIE DER PAPST UNFEHLBAR WURDE: Macht und Ohnmacht
eines Dogmas," R. Piper & Co. Verlag (1979)].

Domenico Rosa

[Mike Painter]

..?R.L.Measures wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
>>>>>>> major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
>>>>>>> infalliable instead of the magisterium.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it
>>>>>> led to the schism of the Old Catholics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still not a rule change.
>>>
>>>> The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
>>>> himself was not infallible.
>>>
>>> And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".
>>
>> He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
>> "In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In
>> the first vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62
>> conditionally in favor; at the last vote 433 were in favor of the
>> promulgation, two opposing, 55 abstaining. "
>> 602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder
>> where those 112 people went?
>
> ** To a local cat house that had a Monday Special?

It's a little known historical fact that there was a school for little boys
close by.
(Little known because I made it up.)

[•€R.L.Measures]

In article >, "Mike
Painter" > wrote:

>.?R.L.Measures wrote:
> >>>
>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>> On 27 Jul 2005 18:08:07 -0700, "Dom" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has been pointed ou to you any number of times. The last
>>>>>>>> major one was in 1871 when the pope declared that he was
>>>>>>>> infalliable instead of the magisterium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The infallibility dogma was promulgated on 18 July 1870, and it
>>>>>>> led to the schism of the Old Catholics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still not a rule change.
>>>>
>>>>> The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
>>>>> himself was not infallible.
>>>>
>>>> And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".
>>>
>>> He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.
>>> "In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In
>>> the first vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62
>>> conditionally in favor; at the last vote 433 were in favor of the
>>> promulgation, two opposing, 55 abstaining. "
>>> 602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder
>>> where those 112 people went?
>>
>> ** To a local cat house that had a Monday Special?
>
>It's a little known historical fact that there was a school for little boys
>close by.
>(Little known because I made it up.)

** There was a real boy-brothel at the Servants of the Paraclete
treatment center for pedophile priests in Jimez Springs, New Mexico.
Perhaps it should have been called a Treat center?

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr

[duke]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:00:20 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:

>>> The RCC seems to think so. Prior to the declaration the pope by
>>> himself was not infallible.

>> And he is in charge of "revelations by the Holy Spirit".

>He is now, he wasn't then. They voted on it.

>"In the council there was a long dispute over the enunciation. In the first
>vote it stood 451 in favor, 88 opposed, and 62 conditionally in favor; at
>the last vote 433 were in favor of the promulgation, two opposing, 55
>abstaining. "
>602 people voted the first time but only 490 the last time. I wonder where
>those 112 people went?

They were probably on vacation.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:32:46 GMT, "Mike Painter" >
wrote:


>>>> ie, artificial.
>>> See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed
>>> out the "AND" part.
>> You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't
>> relate to the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being
>> valid and unitive in purpose.

>It's the church that makes these statements, not me.

The reference is to your fallible interpretation.

>> The sexual act is unitive even when it isn't procreative. God made
>> it that way. Artificial contraception reduces the unitive to pleasure
>> for the satisfaction of other than procreative and/or unitive.

>Irrelevant to what the RCC says.

You mean what you're dreaming it says.

>> You can bs your little atheist buddies, mikey, but I'm too smart for
>> you.
>>> I guess Earl is so used to getting just an egg when he orders "ham
>>> and eggs" that he never will understand
>> Gotcha.
>Sure Earl, enjoy your egg.

I do, I do.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:20:35 -0700, (•€R.L.Measures) wrote:

>>>>> Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
>>>>> sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
>>>>> purposes."

>>>> But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.
>>>>> It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"
>>>> ie, artificial.

>>>See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed out the
>>>"AND" part.

>>You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't relate to
>>the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being valid and unitive in
>>purpose.

>• If a woman has two functioning ovaries and she is not pregnant, there
>is no such thing as her non-orocreative period -- especially if she has an
>orgasm during coitus. [ref: Dr. Jane Comfort "The Facts of Love".]

Thanks, but I'll stick with God's point. I'm not a big fan of dual
"orocreative" periods - commas, ok, but periods - no.

>Even Saint Augustine realized that a woman can get pregnant during her
>menstrual period:

That must thereby mean she is in her procreative period. Good grief but you
confuse yourself.

>- "Defective children will result if conceived during menstruation. Women
>should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should be
>segregated because they are the cause of unholy erections in holy men."
>- Saint Augustine (354-430)

Leave it to "really lost' to hide from the subject and head off on a tangent.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Mike Painter]

duke wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:32:46 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>> ie, artificial.
>>>> See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically
>>>> pointed out the "AND" part.
>>> You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't
>>> relate to the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being
>>> valid and unitive in purpose.
>
>> It's the church that makes these statements, not me.
>
> The reference is to your fallible interpretation.
I quoted and made no interpretation.
>
>>> The sexual act is unitive even when it isn't procreative. God made
>>> it that way. Artificial contraception reduces the unitive to
>>> pleasure for the satisfaction of other than procreative and/or
>>> unitive.
>
>> Irrelevant to what the RCC says.
>
> You mean what you're dreaming it says.

Then show direct quotes from your catechism that contradicts what I quoted
from your catechism.


>
>>> You can bs your little atheist buddies, mikey, but I'm too smart for
>>> you.
>>>> I guess Earl is so used to getting just an egg when he orders "ham
>>>> and eggs" that he never will understand
>>> Gotcha.
>> Sure Earl, enjoy your egg.
>
> I do, I do.
>

[•€R.L.Measures]

In article >, duke
> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:20:35 -0700, (•€R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Your catechism. " ... Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when
>>>>>> sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
>>>>>> purposes."
>
>>>>> But sexual pleasure is unitive, even during periods of infertility.
>>>>>> It does not say OR it say "procreative and unitive purposes"
>>>>> ie, artificial.
>
>>>>See what I mean? I knew Earl would do this so I specifically pointed
out the
>>>>"AND" part.
>
>>>You're dreaming about your greatness, mikey. Apparently you can't
relate to
>>>the non-procreative periods in a woman's cycle as being valid and unitive in
>>>purpose.
>
>>• If a woman has two functioning ovaries and she is not pregnant, there
>>is no such thing as her non-orocreative period -- especially if she has an
>>orgasm during coitus. [ref: Dr. Jane Comfort "The Facts of Love".]
>
>Thanks, but I'll stick with God's point. I'm not a big fan of dual
>"orocreative" periods - commas, ok, but periods - no.

• It matters not what we are a fan of. As long as a woman has two
functioning ovaries, there is no "safe period" since a good orgasm can
cause the most rested ovary to release a egg on any day, period.
>
>>Even Saint Augustine realized that a woman can get pregnant during her
>>menstrual period:
>
>That must thereby mean she is in her procreative period. Good grief but you
>confuse yourself.

• Will a two-cylinder engine continue to run when one spark plug is not
firing and the other one is?
>
>>- "Defective children will result if conceived during menstruation. Women
>>should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should be
>>segregated because they are the cause of unholy erections in holy men."
>>- Saint Augustine (354-430)
>
>Leave it to "really lost' to hide from the subject and head off on a tangent.
>
• Unholy erections are hardly a tangent.

--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr