Has the Catholic church lost control

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.

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

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

"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

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

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

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.

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
*****

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
*****

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 *
************************************************** **