Fishkeeping - Has the Catholic church lost control

FishKeepingBanter.com (http://www.fishkeepingbanter.com/index.php)

- General (http://www.fishkeepingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Has the Catholic church lost control (http://www.fishkeepingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=21754)

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.

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
*****

"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.

"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.

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.

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
*****

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/catholic...union-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
*****

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

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
*****