The Greatest American Bishop of all time
Padraic42
In article <5q0iuk$9nu$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>Excuse me? Mark, you are confusing me with somebody else. I have NEVER
>said that the Novus Ordo is invlaid, or anything remotely close to that.
>My only criticism is that the English translation is particularly
>sterile. So please, if you want to argue with me, do so with comments I
>have actually made, not lies. As for my credibility, I do not lie about
>the facts I report. My opinions are precisely that--opinions-- but facts
>are facts.
Almost a moot point Tony. You've followed after theologians who say what
you want to hear like a puppy dog. You called any bishop who tried to
show Bernardin his errors, 'hard-core right wing' and sinister. You
called a Cardinal in the Church an Irish-american mafioso (O'Connor), in
short, you've destroyed any credibility you ever had. 'YOU' decide what
Church teaching to follow and which not to. "YOU' decide what is
infallable and what isn't. You applaud Bernardin for publicly
'correcting' Bishop Burkewitz, and call thos ewho did the same to
Bernardin hard core right wingers. You publicly wrote that you see it a
grave error an danger to follow the teachings of the Pope and the
Magesterium, in short, you're a hypocrite.
Pax Christi, Pat
"If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross, and begin to follow in my footsteps." (Matt.16:24)
BMccahill
Cardinal O'Connor does not support "gay rights", (i.e., the right to
flaunt perversion without fear of reproach) and I'll bet dollars to
donuts, that that is the sum and substance of Tony's objection.
BAM
Padraic42
In article <5q0tsq$gd3$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>Bernardin was quite correct in saying that Fabian Bruskovich's
declaration
>was imprudent. Please remember that Bernardin was not some outsider (for
>God's sake, the man is barely in his grave and you are blackening his
name
>with accusations like this), but the acknowledged leader of the Us
catholic
>church "where Bernardin goes, others follow" is somthing I have heard a
lot.
>Of course, the hard-core right wing detested him, mainly because he
>was mature and confindent enough in his faith to be able to seek dialogue
>with those in disagreement with various church teachings instead of
>resorting to old-style authoritarian anathemas and excommunications.
>
First, not only is it well within a bishops authority and duty to
pronounce what is anathema, and Call To Action and Planned Parenthood, to
name only two, do preach a gospel other than the one given us.
You again show your hypocracy by claiming what Bernardin did was
alright, but anyone who said that Bernardin's teachings were 'imprudent'
are automatically "hard-core right wing". He was the self proclaimed
leader of the American Catholic Church even while he was alive, and I'm
glad you finally admit he was an American Catholic Bishop ratehr than a
Roman Catholic Bishop in America.
The claim that this attempt to keep to the truth and keep the Church
from error and heresy is "a return old-style authoritarian anathemas and
excommunications" shows you to be the relativist I always thought you
were. There is no truth, everything is relative, everything is
changeable, adaptable. Why? Because some 'infallable' theologian said
so. Learn your faith Tony, or you may be outside of it.
Padraic42
In article <5q456v$fef$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>
>In article <19970710213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Padraic42 <padr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <5q0iuk$9nu$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>>am...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>>
>>>Excuse me? Mark, you are confusing me with somebody else. I have NEVER
>>>said that the Novus Ordo is invlaid, or anything remotely close to
that.
>>>My only criticism is that the English translation is particularly
>>>sterile. So please, if you want to argue with me, do so with comments I
>>>have actually made, not lies. As for my credibility, I do not lie about
>>>the facts I report. My opinions are precisely that--opinions-- but
facts
>>>are facts.
>>
>> Almost a moot point Tony. You've followed after theologians who say
what
>>you want to hear like a puppy dog. You called any bishop who tried to
>>show Bernardin his errors, 'hard-core right wing' and sinister. You
>>called a Cardinal in the Church an Irish-american mafioso (O'Connor), in
>>short, you've destroyed any credibility you ever had. 'YOU' decide what
>>Church teaching to follow and which not to. "YOU' decide what is
>>infallable and what isn't. You applaud Bernardin for publicly
>>'correcting' Bishop Burkewitz, and call thos ewho did the same to
>>Bernardin hard core right wingers. You publicly wrote that you see it a
>>grave error an danger to follow the teachings of the Pope and the
>>Magesterium, in short, you're a hypocrite.
>
>intellectuals, great minds, and fully orthodox to boot. You, pat, are the
>puppy-dog,
Thank you Tony. Yes, as St. Peter said to Christ in Jn. 6, "To whom
shall we go?" I will not follow after some fancy talking theologian who
waves credentials in my face and claims infallability. Heresy and
apostasy is wrong, regardless of the credentials of the 'theologian'
expressing it. These people are orthodox according to who? Call To
Action? WomanChurch? Dignity? We Are Church? So Tony, when did you leav
ethe Church for this man made one of yours?
Padraic42
In article <19970711050...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
bmcc...@aol.com (BMccahill) writes:
Careful BAM, if you disagree with Tony and point out his mistake, you
may be called hard core right wing. Tony's church is not headed by the
Pope and Magesterium but by theologians and these theologians say that any
kind of sex is ok, Humanae Vitae can be 'adapted' to suit the wants of
society, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallable and can be overturned,
etc.
I'm still waiting for the Scriptural reference where Christ promised the
Apostles theologians to guide them in all truth?
Mark Hartman
In article <5q456v$fef$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) wrote:
>In article <19970710213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Padraic42 <padr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <5q0iuk$9nu$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>>am...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>>
>>>Excuse me? Mark, you are confusing me with somebody else. I have NEVER
>>>said that the Novus Ordo is invlaid, or anything remotely close to that.
>>>My only criticism is that the English translation is particularly
>>>sterile. So please, if you want to argue with me, do so with comments I
>>>have actually made, not lies. As for my credibility, I do not lie about
>>>the facts I report. My opinions are precisely that--opinions-- but facts
>>>are facts.
As I noted in another post, I did have Tony confused with someone else, and
I'll take this opportunity to apologize again in case anyone missed the first
one.
However...
>> Almost a moot point Tony. You've followed after theologians who say what
>>you want to hear like a puppy dog. You called any bishop who tried to
>>show Bernardin his errors, 'hard-core right wing' and sinister. You
>>called a Cardinal in the Church an Irish-american mafioso (O'Connor), in
>>short, you've destroyed any credibility you ever had. 'YOU' decide what
>>Church teaching to follow and which not to. "YOU' decide what is
>>infallable and what isn't. You applaud Bernardin for publicly
>>'correcting' Bishop Burkewitz, and call thos ewho did the same to
>>Bernardin hard core right wingers. You publicly wrote that you see it a
>>grave error an danger to follow the teachings of the Pope and the
>>Magesterium, in short, you're a hypocrite.
>
>Theologians who say what I want to hear? I am speaking of top-class
>intellectuals, great minds, and fully orthodox to boot. You, pat, are the
>puppy-dog, the one who thinks the faith is all about obeying every word
>handed down from the current church teachings. Ever heard of the sensu fidei?
It's the "sensum fidei." It's very interesting, Tony, how people who support
dissent - such as Cardinal Bernardin - and the people who support them - like
you - LOVE to quote that particular principle, without ever realizing that
"the sense of the faithful" DOES NOT INCLUDE DISSENTERS FROM THE MAGISTERIUM,
because they are not "faithful" to it, by definition - they dissent from it.
>It may shock you to find that we can easily alter the
>minor stuff without degenerating into another protestant sect, denying
>the real presence and sacerdotal authority.
It may shock YOU, Tony, to find that "we" can't alter ANYTHING about the
Church - unlike the USA, the Church is not even putatively a democratic
republic; it's a monarchy and faithful Catholics are subject to it.
>The church is going through
>a major rethink over the last half century--hopefully when things clear
>up a little, attitudes like yours will be completely anachronistic.
The funny thing about the statement above is that the Church is, indeed,
starting to go through a major rethink about the last 35 years or so - and
neither the Pope nor the faithful bishops in communion with him are liking
what they see. And, unfortunately for your way of thinking, Tony, the
decisions are not tending to seek "common ground" with those who dissent from
the truths of Catholic teaching.
======================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030 -+- e-mail m...@primenet.com
"But it's not a fair test! People LIKE to use the Macintosh!"
======================================================================
"If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful." --C. S. Lewis
Anthony M Annett
In article <19970711121...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Padraic42 <padr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5q0tsq$gd3$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>am...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>
>>Bernardin was quite correct in saying that Fabian Bruskovich's
>declaration
>>was imprudent. Please remember that Bernardin was not some outsider (for
>>God's sake, the man is barely in his grave and you are blackening his
>name
>>with accusations like this), but the acknowledged leader of the Us
>catholic
>>church "where Bernardin goes, others follow" is somthing I have heard a
>lot.
>>Of course, the hard-core right wing detested him, mainly because he
>>was mature and confindent enough in his faith to be able to seek dialogue
>>with those in disagreement with various church teachings instead of
>>resorting to old-style authoritarian anathemas and excommunications.
>>
> First, not only is it well within a bishops authority and duty to
>pronounce what is anathema, and Call To Action and Planned Parenthood, to
>name only two, do preach a gospel other than the one given us.
There is often the matter of what is allowed and what is prudent. Bishop
Bruskovitz was within his rights, but highly imprudent in terms of how
the catholic church is viewed from the outside (and from even within).
Before you start trying to tell me I'm outside the church (as you always
do) I must point out that this is a very Vatican 2 position: see, for
example, the discussion in chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium which argues that
the church should not use certain titles for the Blessed Virgin, not
because they are theologically incorrect, but because it would generate
too much misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, pat, arguments such as this are lost on you.
> You again show your hypocracy by claiming what Bernardin did was
>alright, but anyone who said that Bernardin's teachings were 'imprudent'
>are automatically "hard-core right wing". He was the self proclaimed
>leader of the American Catholic Church even while he was alive, and I'm
>glad you finally admit he was an American Catholic Bishop ratehr than a
>Roman Catholic Bishop in America.
I fail to see your distinction. They are one in the same.
> The claim that this attempt to keep to the truth and keep the Church
>from error and heresy is "a return old-style authoritarian anathemas and
>excommunications" shows you to be the relativist I always thought you
>were. There is no truth, everything is relative, everything is
>changeable, adaptable. Why? Because some 'infallable' theologian said
>so. Learn your faith Tony, or you may be outside of it.
Pat--you were in the army right?
Well, the church is not fucking bootcamp. The church I belong to
has preserved certain truths of salvation for 2000 years. Along the
way, it has changed teachings on many non-essential issues in line with
the culture of the time. Your problem is that you are blind to this
difference. Go back to the Council of Jerusalem: how long did the
prescriptions issued there last? Whetever happened to the church's teachings
on usury? Why does the church not urge us to kill infidels any more?
None of this is relevant to the ultimate truth contained in the church's
teachings. But you--you seem to imagine the church dropped out of the sky
sometime in the 1950s and had no prior history. Well it did. And a final
point--why did the 12st council not issue any anathemas? maybe it could
be (shock, horror) the prudent thing to do? You are really no different
from those crazy feenyites and would reduce the church to a tiny group
of people who simply want to be told "the rules" and anybody who doesn't
obey them is cast out (like you keep telling me I'm outside the church).
You know, Lefebve considers the pope outside the church, using the same
type of logic....
Tony
"Bonum est id quod omnia appetunt"
--- Thomas Aquinas
Anthony M Annett
In article <19970712005...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
BMccahill <bmcc...@aol.com> wrote:
>Tony says:
>
><What distresses me is that too many catholics today think that the
>church will <no longer exist if we disagree with the pope on certain
>inessential issues (and <lets face it condoms are a minor issue, and a
>dead issue as the battle has been
><lost). This is more a response to certain 19th century trends than the
><history of the church.
>
>Nice try Tony, but wake up. You just can't get off the condom/homo/sex
>stuff can you?
I wish to God we could all get beyond this stuff and focus on the more
important truths of salvation.
Anthony M Annett
In article <5q75ai$l...@news1.rcsntx.swbell.net>,
Bob <"bobw45"@$$swbell.net> wrote:
>Anthony M Annett wrote:
>
>> You know, Lefebve considers the pope outside the church, using the same
>> type of logic....
>
> did believe the Pope was under the control of the liberal element
> in the Church.
If that is all that is too it, then he must recognize the validity of
his excommunication and the drastic conequences of it. We are all
entitled to our opinions about whether the pope is too liberal or
too conservative, but the ground shifts dramaticallt once we start
questioning his validity in the first place, which is what the
whole Lefebvist movement is really about.
Padraic42
In article <5q65rg$a8n$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>> First, not only is it well within a bishops authority and duty to
>>pronounce what is anathema, and Call To Action and Planned Parenthood,
to
>>name only two, do preach a gospel other than the one given us.
>
>There is often the matter of what is allowed and what is prudent. Bishop
>Bruskovitz was within his rights, but highly imprudent in terms of how
>the catholic church is viewed from the outside (and from even within).
>Before you start trying to tell me I'm outside the church (as you always
>do) I must point out that this is a very Vatican 2 position: see, for
>example, the discussion in chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium which argues that
>the church should not use certain titles for the Blessed Virgin, not
>because they are theologically incorrect, but because it would generate
>too much misunderstanding.
>Unfortunately, pat, arguments such as this are lost on you.
>
For Bruskovitz to have done anything else would have done what Bernardin
has done, cause confusion on what is authentic Church teaching. It was
his obligation to point out to those people that they had removed,
excommunicated themselves, from the Church by following a
theology/organization, which is contrary to the teachings of the Church.
As for the titles of Mary, it may be 'prudent' not to bring up her titles
before Non-Catholics, but hardly before Catholics. Her tittles ARE a
deposit of the faith of Catholicism. How can calling Mary a Mediatrix of
grace to a Catholic generate misunderstanding, unless the Catholic doesn't
understand their own Catholicism? In that case, we MUST show them the
teaching of the Church.
Unfortunetly, these thoughts are lost on you who seems to have fallen
for the modernist line.
>> You again show your hypocracy by claiming what Bernardin did was
>>alright, but anyone who said that Bernardin's teachings were 'imprudent'
>>are automatically "hard-core right wing". He was the self proclaimed
>>leader of the American Catholic Church even while he was alive, and I'm
>>glad you finally admit he was an American Catholic Bishop ratehr than a
>>Roman Catholic Bishop in America.
>
>I fail to see your distinction. They are one in the same.
>
I was waiting for that one Tony. The refuge of the scoundrel. Like the
relativist who says all truth is relative, except for the truth which
contradicts his, you say that I am being hypocritical. According to you,
anyone who disagreed with Bernardin was a 'hard-core, right winger'. But
who ever disagrees with Burskewitz, the Pope, the Magesterium, et al, are
'enlightened'? But, if truth is NOT relative, and it isn't, then those
bishops who disagreed with Bernadin, and said so publicly, as he did
against Bruskewitz (a taste of his own medicine), then they aren't being
'hard-core right wingers', but rather, they are attesting, witnessing to
the truth. a truth you obviously can't stomach.
>> The claim that this attempt to keep to the truth and keep the Church
>>from error and heresy is "a return old-style authoritarian anathemas and
>>excommunications" shows you to be the relativist I always thought you
>>were. There is no truth, everything is relative, everything is
>>changeable, adaptable. Why? Because some 'infallable' theologian said
>>so. Learn your faith Tony, or you may be outside of it.
>
>Pat--you were in the army right?
>Well, the church is not fucking bootcamp.
Oh such nice language from such an 'enlightened' Catholic. But, just as
order is maintianed by discipline in the military, so too is order
maintained in the Church by following the 'regulations' handed down to us
by Christ and the Apostles.
> The church I belong to
>has preserved certain truths of salvation for 2000 years. Along the
>way, it has changed teachings on many non-essential issues in line with
>the culture of the time. Your problem is that you are blind to this
>difference.
And it has challenged many serious heresies, like relativism and
modernism. and in many of those cases, the Church had to take strn
measures to mantian the truth, including excommunicating those who
followed those heresies. The Church NEVER changed the truth, regardless
of the culture of the time. You problem is that you are blind to that
fact.
> Go back to the Council of Jerusalem: how long did the
>prescriptions issued there last?
The Council of Jerusalem dealt with matters of custom, not truths.
Dietary restrictions, circumcision, where customs. The heretical
"Judiaizers' tried to make them a necessity for salvation. They didn't
relate to our sexuality, the importance of human life, etc.
> Whetever happened to the church's teachings
>on usury?
Nothing happened to it, it is still a sin. But, the loaning of money to
buy a house, or a car, and recieving interest on that loan is not the same
as making money from the suffering and needs of those in distress. What
you have done is gotten confused on exactly what usury is and isn't.
> Why does the church not urge us to kill infidels any more?
The Church never urged us to kill infidels. Many IN the Church did, but
not for reasons of the faith. True, the Church approved one of the
Crusades to free the Holy lands from the militant Muslims. But at no time
will you find a Church teaching that says, "If you see an infidel, kill
them." Again Tony, you are grasping, and twisting historical occuracnes,
misinterpreting them, and trying to say the Church did it. Like those who
say the Church approved of the actions,and/or founded, of the Spanish
Inquisition.
>None of this is relevant to the ultimate truth contained in the church's
>teachings. But you--you seem to imagine the church dropped out of the sky
>sometime in the 1950s and had no prior history. Well it did. And a final
>point--why did the 12st council not issue any anathemas? maybe it could
>be (shock, horror) the prudent thing to do? You are really no different
>from those crazy feenyites and would reduce the church to a tiny group
>of people who simply want to be told "the rules" and anybody who doesn't
>obey them is cast out (like you keep telling me I'm outside the church).
>You know, Lefebve considers the pope outside the church, using the same
>type of logic....
>
Wrong again Tony. I am all for Vatican II, for what Vatican II 'really'
teaches, not what you and some theologian(s) 'say' it teaches. I follow
Vatican II, not the 'core' of Vatican II, or the 'spirit' of Vatican II.
Wouldn't it have been prudent for Christ to 'adapt' what became John 6?
Wouldn't it have been 'prudent' for Christ to 'adapt' to the 'culure of
the times' and allow the monety changers in the Temple?
Actually Tony, you and Lefebve have much in common. Both of you think
it's an error, and dangerous, to follow the Pope and the Magesterium. And
just as Lefebrve can find a theologian(s) to support him, so can you.
BTW, where is that Scriptural refernce I asked for that says that Christ
will send theologians to guide us in all truths?
Padraic42
In article <5q6pra$kop$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>><What distresses me is that too many catholics today think that the
>>church will <no longer exist if we disagree with the pope on certain
>>inessential issues (and <lets face it condoms are a minor issue, and a
>>dead issue as the battle has been
>><lost). This is more a response to certain 19th century trends than the
>><history of the church.
>>
>>Nice try Tony, but wake up. You just can't get off the condom/homo/sex
>>stuff can you?
>
>I wish to God we could all get beyond this stuff and focus on the more
>important truths of salvation.
Then why do you bring it up Tony? It seems to me that you don't see a
connection between the truth and salvation. Our us eof our sexuality is a
part of the truths of salvation.
Padraic42
In article <5q64ru$9ka$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>>Cardinal O'Connor does not support "gay rights", (i.e., the right to
>>flaunt perversion without fear of reproach) and I'll bet dollars to
>>donuts, that that is the sum and substance of Tony's objection.
>
>I never mentioned O'Connor's views on gays.
>Unlike many in this newsgroup, I have no hidden agenda. What I mean is
>what I say.
Why don't I believe that!!!!
Anthony M Annett
In article <mh-110797...@192.168.1.1>,
Mark Hartman <m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com> wrote:
>>The solution, according to
>>the conservatives, is to bring us back to the 1950s (or to the model
>>of the church which dominated the nineteeth and early twentieth
>>century). THat is not the way-- it will alienate too many people.
>
>First, you're doing the strawman trick - that's not what the conservatives
>say. We're saying that people ought to get to know what the Church REALLY
>teaches, and then decide whether or not they want to accept it completely,
>or if they don't want to be called Catholic any more. There is no middle
>ground.
The conservatives may not say that, but that is implicit in everything
they say and do. Indulge me here for a minute, as I talk abou my own
personal experiences among the "devout" catholics I know (defined as those
whose faith goes beyind sitting in a pew for an hour a week). There are,
in my experience, two kinds. First, those with a strong faith and a healthy
approach to the secular world. They understand that the faith does not
revolve around minor issues like gays and condoms, and that the essence
of the church is not blind obedience. They are well-rounded, happy people,
and those that have vocations accept celibacy willingly.
Then there are the others: people who are constantly angry, with some sort
of chip on their shoulders. Politically they align themselves with
extreme right-wing causes and are ofen devoid of christian charity. They
believe the world of the 1950s is the model to which the church must
adhere and will anybody who disagrees with them as "modernist" or
"outside the church". They Feenyites are only extreme branch on this
general phenomenon.
>Nor is it about a "pick and choose" personal interpretation brand of
>Protestantism which many people such as yourself would like the Church
>to become, Tony. The truths taught by the Church - including Humanae
>Vitae - are not negotiable. If you don't accept them, you're lying by
>calling yourself a Catholic. And it's just that simple.
I am not "picking and choosing". I believe (in my own weak and limited
way) in the truths of salvation. I will not accept the logic of HV to
the letter because it is not infallible, and never will be. And there
is nothing "personal" about this-- I am single and celibate. It is not
selfish. It is a judgement based on the search for truth, in the
tradition of the natural law.
Anthony M Annett
In article <19970712150...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Padraic42 <padr...@aol.com> wrote:
> For Bruskovitz to have done anything else would have done what Bernardin
>has done, cause confusion on what is authentic Church teaching. It was
>his obligation to point out to those people that they had removed,
>excommunicated themselves, from the Church by following a
>theology/organization, which is contrary to the teachings of the Church.
So every other bishop is wrong in not making the same statement as
Fabian Bruskovitz?
The reason why I disagree with Bruskovitz is not because I like the
organizations he denounced. I don't. It's just that he was being
selective. Here's an example from Ireland, my own country: the group
called Sinn Fein supports terrorism, and as such is condemned by the
church. Why doesn't the Irish church excommuniate all members on
Sinn Fein, giving their beliefs are not only in error, but depraved and
evil? There comes a point when you have to realize that everybody will
meet God face to face one day and answer for his/her actions. Public
"outing" is not the church's role.
>As for the titles of Mary, it may be 'prudent' not to bring up her titles
>before Non-Catholics, but hardly before Catholics. Her tittles ARE a
>deposit of the faith of Catholicism. How can calling Mary a Mediatrix of
>grace to a Catholic generate misunderstanding, unless the Catholic doesn't
>understand their own Catholicism? In that case, we MUST show them the
>teaching of the Church.
> Unfortunetly, these thoughts are lost on you who seems to have fallen
>for the modernist line.
So chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium is modernist, eh, Pat? I've just finished
reading it and is says clearly that the Council is not going to define
exactly how Mary mediates for us and will avoid using titles that (if
rightly understood, are fully orthodox), but leave the door open to too
much confusion.
>>Pat--you were in the army right?
>>Well, the church is not fucking bootcamp.
>
> Oh such nice language from such an 'enlightened' Catholic. But, just as
>order is maintianed by discipline in the military, so too is order
>maintained in the Church by following the 'regulations' handed down to us
>by Christ and the Apostles.
As for the language, it's part of my culture and NOt part of the moral
order.
You see the church as a Muslim: we have revelation, we follow specific
orders, we go to heaven.
Thankfully, it's not that simple as the ultimate truth is not written but
inscibed on the heart of every person. You fail to realize that it is
possible to debate a theological issue and not be a relatavist. If so,
our 2000 year intellectual history is all in vain.
>> The church I belong to
>>has preserved certain truths of salvation for 2000 years. Along the
>>way, it has changed teachings on many non-essential issues in line with
>>the culture of the time. Your problem is that you are blind to this
>>difference.
>
> And it has challenged many serious heresies, like relativism and
>modernism. and in many of those cases, the Church had to take strn
>measures to mantian the truth, including excommunicating those who
>followed those heresies. The Church NEVER changed the truth, regardless
>of the culture of the time. You problem is that you are blind to that
>fact.
I agree. It has never changed the truth. It has changed the non-essentials.
>> Go back to the Council of Jerusalem: how long did the
>>prescriptions issued there last?
>
> The Council of Jerusalem dealt with matters of custom, not truths.
>Dietary restrictions, circumcision, where customs. The heretical
>"Judiaizers' tried to make them a necessity for salvation. They didn't
>relate to our sexuality, the importance of human life, etc.
The council concluded the prescription were to be followed by all believers.
That's all I need for my argument.
>> Whetever happened to the church's teachings
>>on usury?
>
> Nothing happened to it, it is still a sin. But, the loaning of money to
>buy a house, or a car, and recieving interest on that loan is not the same
>as making money from the suffering and needs of those in distress. What
>you have done is gotten confused on exactly what usury is and isn't.
St one time, receiving ANY interest was a sin. It is no longer the same
because that teaching made no sense after the devlelopment of the
international capital markets in the 16th century. IN other words, the church
reacted to a changing society. It still, as you said, taught that
exploitation is always a sin. But again, that's all I need for my
argument.
>> Why does the church not urge us to kill infidels any more?
>
> The Church never urged us to kill infidels. Many IN the Church did, but
>not for reasons of the faith. True, the Church approved one of the
>Crusades to free the Holy lands from the militant Muslims. But at no time
>will you find a Church teaching that says, "If you see an infidel, kill
>them." Again Tony, you are grasping, and twisting historical occuracnes,
>misinterpreting them, and trying to say the Church did it. Like those who
>say the Church approved of the actions,and/or founded, of the Spanish
>Inquisition.
OK, I was being hyperbolic. THe church always condemned the murder of
civilians. But the present recognition on the catechism that the muslims
have a share in the plan of salvation (albeit not as fully as a member
of the catholic church) would NOT have been accepted during the time
period in question.
> BTW, where is that Scriptural refernce I asked for that says that Christ
>will send theologians to guide us in all truths?
What am I , a protestnat?
Waht are you, an anti-intellectual?
Anthony M Annett
> Core teachings of the Church meaning 'the spirit of Vatican II'. A term
>which says nothing, except, authentic Church teaching is 'adaptable' to
>what you want it to say.
It means no such thing. It means the infallble truths preserved for
2,000 years. Humanae Vitae is not one of them. Non-essential teaching is
indeed apaptable. At one time, there was an absolute ban on usury.
Why did this go? Because the nature of internatioanl capital markets
developing in the 16th century meant the teaching had no real meaning.
THere you have it , Pat: the church changed a teaching based on changes
in society. It's authority did not diminish, because the usury teaching
was never part of "core faith". It will be the same with HV: as society
changes, the ban on artificial contraception will become less important.
The prohibition on usury was replaced by an insistence that people should
not make excessive profits or exploit workers. One can easily see the church
accepting artificial contraception, but speaking out against promiscuity
and sex without fidelity. Again, it's authority will not diminish, but
it will be reacting to societies changing views on sexuality. Remember
the early churcgh shaped these views in the first place based on the
negative approcah to sexuality in late antiquity.
>>is also distressed that the west is becoming increasingly self-centred
>>and materialistic with no conception of the "common good". I think here
>>that the Holy father is perfectly right. The solution, according to
>>the conservatives, is to bring us back to the 1950s (or to the model
>>of the church which dominated the nineteeth and early twentieth
>>century).
>
> Wrong, the orthodox Catholic, and the Pope and the Magesterium, sees the
>need for the Church to return to the authentic teacings of Vatican II, not
>the 'core teachings, 'spirit of Vatican II' teachings of the modernist and
>relativist.
I don't know what you mean by "spirit of V2". I've heard it referred to
in so many different contexts. I'll give an example of what I think
you mean-- a bunch of wacko Jesuits in New York have adapted the liturgy
to include blessings like "in the name of the father, mother, son, and
spirit". Do I support this? Absolutely not. Pat, surely you can see
the huge leap between the way I argue and the direction taken by these
people?
> And if it does, so what? The truth in John 6 made many leave Christ.
>did He change the teaching to accomodate them? To make them feel better?
>Did He 'adapt' it so as not to alienate them? It isn't a popularity
>contest. If only one remains loyal to the Church and authentic Church
>teaching, then the Church remains.
Nobody is saying water down core teachings. Indeed, the doctrine of the
Real Presence needs to be defended vigorously in a world which has lost
its sense of mystery. It's the minor stuff I'm concerned with..
> Tony, you are WAY off base.
Hopefully not.
Padraic42
In article <5qbgaf$rtd$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>> For Bruskovitz to have done anything else would have done what
Bernardin
>>has done, cause confusion on what is authentic Church teaching. It was
>>his obligation to point out to those people that they had removed,
>>excommunicated themselves, from the Church by following a
>>theology/organization, which is contrary to the teachings of the Church.
>
>So every other bishop is wrong in not making the same statement as
>Fabian Bruskovitz?
Any bishop who doesn't point out, as Bruskovizt did, that belonging to
these organizations, which are in opposition to authentic Church teaching,
have already removed themselves from the Church, are doing their flock a
grave diservice, adding to confusion, heresy, and apostasy. Recall Tony,
he didn't excommunicat ethem, he said, which is the truth, that they did
it to themselves.
>The reason why I disagree with Bruskovitz is not because I like the
>organizations he denounced. I don't. It's just that he was being
>selective. Here's an example from Ireland, my own country: the group
>called Sinn Fein supports terrorism, and as such is condemned by the
>church. Why doesn't the Irish church excommuniate all members on
>Sinn Fein, giving their beliefs are not only in error, but depraved and
>evil? There comes a point when you have to realize that everybody will
>meet God face to face one day and answer for his/her actions. Public
>"outing" is not the church's role.
>
Being Irish myself, I don't the Sinn Fein example as being comperable.
As for not liking the organizations he denounced, then why do you
basically parrot what they preach? I am well aware the confusing picture
in Northern Ireland in regards to the IRA, Sinn Fein, etc. Persoanlly, I
agree that the Irish Church should make it very clear that the actions of
the 'present' day IRA are against Church teaching, but we both know that
that isn't so clear. But the organizations spoke about by here are not
struggling between politics, even sectarian politics, but rather it's
fight between the Church and their 'secular', apostate church. The Church
has, from the beginning , pointed out that those who 'preached' another
gospel, was anathema, 'out' of the Church. In defense of the truth, the
Church has little choice but to publicly 'out' these people. As one
Vatican official said, "Schism, as bad as it is, is better than teaching
heresy."
>>As for the titles of Mary, it may be 'prudent' not to bring up her
titles
>>before Non-Catholics, but hardly before Catholics. Her tittles ARE a
>>deposit of the faith of Catholicism. How can calling Mary a Mediatrix
of
>>grace to a Catholic generate misunderstanding, unless the Catholic
doesn't
>>understand their own Catholicism? In that case, we MUST show them the
>>teaching of the Church.
>> Unfortunetly, these thoughts are lost on you who seems to have fallen
>>for the modernist line.
>
>So chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium is modernist, eh, Pat?
Actually, after reading Chjapter 8 of Lumen Gentium, again, I don't see
what your referig to Tony. A) either be more specific as to the location
of your mythical phrase, or change your tune. In fact, chap. 8 goes into
great detail with 'titles' of Mary. Mother of God, mediatrix, etc. It
promotes the "cult of Mary" with regards to correct Church teaching, etc.
As before Tony, and like those 'organizations you don't like', you refer
to something that says nothing you say it does. Lumen Gentium, is not
modernist, but your interpretation is.
> I've just finished
>reading it and is says clearly that the Council is not going to define
>exactly how Mary mediates for us and will avoid using titles that (if
>rightly understood, are fully orthodox), but leave the door open to too
>much confusion.
>
Refernces. It may not 'define' exactly HOW she mediates, but it does
'define' that she DOES mediate.
>>>Pat--you were in the army right?
>>>Well, the church is not fucking bootcamp.
>>
>> Oh such nice language from such an 'enlightened' Catholic. But, just
as
>>order is maintianed by discipline in the military, so too is order
>>maintained in the Church by following the 'regulations' handed down to
us
>>by Christ and the Apostles.
>
>As for the language, it's part of my culture and NOt part of the moral
>order.
Doesn't surprise me.
>You see the church as a Muslim: we have revelation, we follow specific
>orders, we go to heaven.
>Thankfully, it's not that simple as the ultimate truth is not written but
>inscibed on the heart of every person. You fail to realize that it is
>possible to debate a theological issue and not be a relatavist. If so,
>our 2000 year intellectual history is all in vain.
>
I don't see the Church as Muslim Tony. But you have touched on what
Christ Himself said. He gave us the truth, commanded us to follow that
truth, and those who perservere to the end will be saved. I would also
point out that the Apostles where not intellectuals, but those who opposed
them, and Christ, where. Again, please show me Scriptural refences where
Christ promised 'intellectuals' and/or 'theologians' to guide the Church
in all truths?
A lot snipped)
>
>What am I , a protestnat?
Sound like it, or worse. Why else do you refer to 'mysterious, unnamed'
'orthodox', theologians instead of authentic Church teaching.
>Waht are you, an anti-intellectual?
>
No, just a loyal Catholic who doesn't see it a danger to follow the
teachings of the Church, the Pope, and the Magesterium.
If it is anti-intellectualism, to doubt the 'physicist' who says I can
defy the natural law and laws of gravity and fly by jumoing from my roof,
then so be it. Better an anti-intellectual than dead, physically OR
spiritually.
Padraic42
In article <5qbe23$qtg$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>The conservatives may not say that, but that is implicit in everything
>they say and do. Indulge me here for a minute, as I talk abou my own
>personal experiences among the "devout" catholics I know (defined as
those
>whose faith goes beyind sitting in a pew for an hour a week). There are,
>in my experience, two kinds. First, those with a strong faith and a
healthy
>approach to the secular world. They understand that the faith does not
>revolve around minor issues like gays and condoms, and that the essence
>of the church is not blind obedience. They are well-rounded, happy
people,
>and those that have vocations accept celibacy willingly.
Wrong again Tony, because gayys and condoms are not minor issues. The
homosexual act is a sin which cries to heaven for vengence, condoms are a
way to say to God, I will not serve. Both, as the world sees them, are
selfish and self centered in their stance. Just some more modernist,
relativist, anything goes, theology. Sad thing is, I'm sure Tony really
thinks he's following the Church. Why? Because he's been duped by those
who want to remake the Church of Christ into the church of man, and have
been working to that end for some 30 years.
Anthony M Annett
In article <19970714123...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Padraic42 <padr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5qbe23$qtg$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>am...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>
>>The conservatives may not say that, but that is implicit in everything
>>they say and do. Indulge me here for a minute, as I talk abou my own
>>personal experiences among the "devout" catholics I know (defined as
>those
>>whose faith goes beyind sitting in a pew for an hour a week). There are,
>>in my experience, two kinds. First, those with a strong faith and a
>healthy
>>approach to the secular world. They understand that the faith does not
>>revolve around minor issues like gays and condoms, and that the essence
>>of the church is not blind obedience. They are well-rounded, happy
>people,
>>and those that have vocations accept celibacy willingly.
>
> Wrong again Tony, because gayys and condoms are not minor issues. The
>homosexual act is a sin which cries to heaven for vengence, condoms are a
>way to say to God, I will not serve. Both, as the world sees them, are
>selfish and self centered in their stance. Just some more modernist,
>relativist, anything goes, theology. Sad thing is, I'm sure Tony really
>thinks he's following the Church. Why? Because he's been duped by those
>who want to remake the Church of Christ into the church of man, and have
>been working to that end for some 30 years.
Ha! I've finally gotten you to declare your true colours. I have been
arguing consistently that HV is minor, compared with the truths of
salvation. I have always maintained that a certain bunch of conservatives
would see the church stand or fall based on the HV issues of gays and
condoms. In return, I have been accused of being the person who keeps
raising the issue. Well, persistence pays off and Pat, you have
vindicated my position. I'm not the one who is duped: you are duped by
those with no sense of history, who think that the path the church took
after the French Revolution was same path it had taken for 2000 years.
By the way, neither of your statements are the correct natural law
arguments which again leads me conclude you are more interested in
scapegoating than the pursuit of truth.
Anthony M Annett
In article <5qct6o$m...@news1.rcsntx.swbell.net>,
Bob <"bobw45"@$$swbell.net> wrote:
>
>Anthony M Annett wrote:
>
>> If that is all that is too it, then he must recognize the validity of
>> his excommunication and the drastic conequences of it. We are all
>> entitled to our opinions about whether the pope is too liberal or
>> too conservative, but the ground shifts dramaticallt once we start
>> questioning his validity in the first place, which is what the
>> whole Lefebvist movement is really about.
>
> 1988, Lefebvre wrote: "I beseech you to remain attached to the
> See of Peter, to the Roman Church, mother and mistress of all
> the churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the
> various creeds of our Catholic faith, in the catechism of the
> Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in
> your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this
> faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come."
>
But the question remains: does he recognize 20 or 21 ecumenical councils?
Anthony M Annett
>term
>>>which says nothing, except, authentic Church teaching is 'adaptable' to
>>>what you want it to say.
>>
>>It means no such thing. It means the infallble truths preserved for
>>2,000 years. Humanae Vitae is not one of them. Non-essential teaching is
>>indeed apaptable. At one time, there was an absolute ban on usury.
>>Why did this go? Because the nature of internatioanl capital markets
>>developing in the 16th century meant the teaching had no real meaning.
>>THere you have it , Pat: the church changed a teaching based on changes
>>in society. It's authority did not diminish, because the usury teaching
>>was never part of "core faith". It will be the same with HV: as society
>>changes, the ban on artificial contraception will become less important.
>>The prohibition on usury was replaced by an insistence that people should
>>not make excessive profits or exploit workers. One can easily see the
>church
>>accepting artificial contraception, but speaking out against promiscuity
>>and sex without fidelity. Again, it's authority will not diminish, but
>>it will be reacting to societies changing views on sexuality. Remember
>>the early churcgh shaped these views in the first place based on the
>>negative approcah to sexuality in late antiquity.
>>
>tired modernism. The sin of usury is still in effect, nothing changed.
>Only that the loaning of money for reasons of business, i.e. starting one,
>buying a car, tc, is not in the same class as usury.
Pat, do you understand anything about economics? Usury means charging
interest on a loan, and makes perfect sense for the efficient running of
capital markets. Before the 16th century there was no sophisticated
capital market.
> Yawn!!!!!! Same modernist views that says Christ and the Apostles "had'
>to teach against sexual promiscuity because of the signs of their times,
>but doesn't relat eto us today who are more 'enlightened', more
>'intellectual', more in tune with the world than they were.
Incorrect. The church's sexual teachings arise out of the sexually
pessimistic society of late antiquity, which taught that sex was
disgusting, a necessary evil. Augustine turned a lot of this on its head
but only by stressing procreation as the primary role of sex. And as
we know, Augustine has made some huge theological mistakes....
> Same tired error, which is against Vatican II, and Tony has ignored,
>that Humanae Vitae can be adapted, that we can disregard Church teaching,
>as long as 'we' think it's not infallable. Tony has succumbed to the
>world, instead of to Christ and His Church.
Not "we", the church. the church knows well HV is not infallible, and
never will be. Lumen gentium allows us to make that distinction.
Pat, start focussing on the important stuff, will you?
Anthony M Annett
In article <19970714123...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Padraic42 <padr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5qbgaf$rtd$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>am...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>
>>> For Bruskovitz to have done anything else would have done what
>Bernardin
>>>has done, cause confusion on what is authentic Church teaching. It was
>>>his obligation to point out to those people that they had removed,
>>>excommunicated themselves, from the Church by following a
>>>theology/organization, which is contrary to the teachings of the Church.
>
>>
>>So every other bishop is wrong in not making the same statement as
>>Fabian Bruskovitz?
>
> Any bishop who doesn't point out, as Bruskovizt did, that belonging to
>these organizations, which are in opposition to authentic Church teaching,
>have already removed themselves from the Church, are doing their flock a
>grave diservice, adding to confusion, heresy, and apostasy. Recall Tony,
>he didn't excommunicat ethem, he said, which is the truth, that they did
>it to themselves.
But was it prudent for him to point that out? There are many groups
out there opposed to principles of the catholic faith (those who
supported much of US foreign policy, for example): you cannot
scapegoat some and not others. Why not leave it to God, as you said
yourself: people excommunicate themselves?
To repeat: are you criticizing every other bishop who did not follow
fabian Brsukovitz's example?
>>The reason why I disagree with Bruskovitz is not because I like the
>>organizations he denounced. I don't. It's just that he was being
>>selective. Here's an example from Ireland, my own country: the group
>>called Sinn Fein supports terrorism, and as such is condemned by the
>>church. Why doesn't the Irish church excommuniate all members on
>>Sinn Fein, giving their beliefs are not only in error, but depraved and
>>evil? There comes a point when you have to realize that everybody will
>>meet God face to face one day and answer for his/her actions. Public
>>"outing" is not the church's role.
>>
> Being Irish myself, I don't the Sinn Fein example as being comperable.
Are you Irish? Ot are you Irish-American? And if the latter, do you
have this romantic notion about Sinn Fein like so many of your fellow
Irish-Americans? There's no ambiguity, Pat: Sinn Fein, by promoting
terrorism, are evil. Isn't it amazing that you can take up a
"relativist" position when it suits you?
>As for not liking the organizations he denounced, then why do you
>basically parrot what they preach? I am well aware the confusing picture
>in Northern Ireland in regards to the IRA, Sinn Fein, etc. Persoanlly, I
>agree that the Irish Church should make it very clear that the actions of
>the 'present' day IRA are against Church teaching, but we both know that
>that isn't so clear. But the organizations spoke about by here are not
It is VERY clear. See above.
>gospel, was anathema, 'out' of the Church. In defense of the truth, the
>Church has little choice but to publicly 'out' these people. As one
>Vatican official said, "Schism, as bad as it is, is better than teaching
>heresy."
And who better to out than a man who receives communion while going
and murdering people without hint of remorse?
Pat, Pat, methinks you are a relativist!
As I've stated many times, Vatican 2 deliberately chose not to "out
people" by issueing anathemas. The implication is that you dont have
to scapegoat your enemy to still believe in the truth.
>>So chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium is modernist, eh, Pat?
>
> Actually, after reading Chjapter 8 of Lumen Gentium, again, I don't see
>what your referig to Tony. A) either be more specific as to the location
>of your mythical phrase, or change your tune. In fact, chap. 8 goes into
>great detail with 'titles' of Mary. Mother of God, mediatrix, etc. It
>promotes the "cult of Mary" with regards to correct Church teaching, etc.
>As before Tony, and like those 'organizations you don't like', you refer
>to something that says nothing you say it does. Lumen Gentium, is not
>modernist, but your interpretation is.
Please read the article in L'Osservatore Romana (a couple of weeks back--
I'll supply the date if you can't find it) on this very issue.
>> I've just finished
>>reading it and is says clearly that the Council is not going to define
>>exactly how Mary mediates for us and will avoid using titles that (if
>>rightly understood, are fully orthodox), but leave the door open to too
>>much confusion.
>>
> Refernces. It may not 'define' exactly HOW she mediates, but it does
>'define' that she DOES mediate.
Above.
> I don't see the Church as Muslim Tony. But you have touched on what
>Christ Himself said. He gave us the truth, commanded us to follow that
>truth, and those who perservere to the end will be saved. I would also
>point out that the Apostles where not intellectuals, but those who opposed
>them, and Christ, where. Again, please show me Scriptural refences where
>Christ promised 'intellectuals' and/or 'theologians' to guide the Church
>in all truths?
You are right in a very narrow sense: that Gnosticism claimed that the
truth was only available to the elite, while we believe the true faith is
accessible to all, doctors of theology and illiterate peasants alike.
That does not mean we should be anti-intellectual and fall into the
"Muslim trap" which glorifies a written text against any debate. The history
of the church is indeed the intellectaul history of western civilization.
Anthony M Annett
In article <mh-140797...@192.168.1.1>,
Mark Hartman <m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com> wrote:
>In article <5qbav8$pbc$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>am...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) wrote:
>>On the core faith.
>
>You keep harping on this "core faith" business, Tony, and you consistently
>fail to tell us (a) where you get the authority to make such an assertion,
>and (b) where you get the authority to decide what the "core faith" is and
>is not.
It's not for me to decide. The church decides. I admit there is a tiny
grey area where the church isn't really sure whether an article of faith id
truly infallible defined and (rightly) takes the side of caution-- the best
example here is the issue of woman's ordination. On 99% of church teaching,
it is already clear and I am not going around making personal decisions
based on what I like and what I don't like. The "infallibility test", as
I'm sure you know, is an innovation of Vatican 2, and c clear example of
the Holy Spirit guiding the church in understanding.
>What you seem to be saying here is that there are two kinds of Church
>teaching: (a) infallible, ex cathedra teachings that we must accept, and
>(b) everything else, which we can feel free to ignore. In point of fact,
>which HV is not possessed of the extraordinary infallibility that you seem
>to require, it is an authoritative teaching of the Church that you as a
>(supposed) member of the Church are required to follow. Certainly, it's
>open to discussion - but it's not open either to dissent or disobedience
>if you want to stay within the Church.
Yes, but I wouldn't say "seel free to ignore", rather "feel free to disagree
with in good conscience", as long as you are acting in the best interests
and not for any selfish reason.
>And at the time, frankly, to say that - and thus to assert that a Catholic
>was not required to obediently follow the rules, even if he was working to
>change them - would be placing oneself outside the Church. A member of the
>Church is REQUIRED TO OBEY THE RULES of the Church, and is required not to
>give scandal by disparaging the Church and its rules and teachings.
Savaronala was burned at the stake as a heretic. he "put himself outside
the church" for questioning the validity of the Borgia pope, Alexander VI.
Now, there is a strong possibility the good Dominican will be canonized.
What does this tell you about obeying every little rule?
>Yes, there are some rules of the Church which change over time, such as the
>form of the weekly self-mortification required of all members of the Church
>even today (I still try to avoid meat on Fridays as mine). But for someone
>in the 1950's who disregarded the "no meat on Fridays" rule, and/or who
>loudly announced that it was a stupid rule and made no sense so they were
>disregarding this, yes, they were to a degree putting themselves outside the
>Church, just as any sin does.
I can't really accept this. Abstinence is good when undertaken with free
will, not because the church tells you to. If that's the only reasoning for
doing it, best not do it at all.
>No problem, so long as you recognize that the "Catholic moral philosophy"
>(and it's got an uppercase C, by the way) includes the requirement that we
>obey the rules even while discussing them, and that the right to discuss
>does not include the right to actively and publicly dissent, even if - and
>possibley ESPECIALLY if - one is a theologian.
Actually, the only judgment on this is that a theologian teaching on
a pontifical faculty cannot dissent. Whether that will be broadened in
the furture, we don't know. And anyway, that is a matter of discipline,
not faith. You may of course argue that a theologian is bound by
discipline, but this is a very different type of argument.
Padraic42
In article <5qdrct$rb3$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>Pat, do you understand anything about economics? Usury means charging
>interest on a loan, and makes perfect sense for the efficient running of
>capital markets. Before the 16th century there was no sophisticated
>capital market.
Tony, do you understand the difference between usury and legitimate loans?
Here, (sorry, no pictures):
"A television reporter recently asked a Vatican official about the
Church's stand on birth control. "If the Church is going to have a place
in America today," she asked, "why don't you just change your rulings on
birth control? You changed your ruling about interest on money?"
It's a faulty ananlogy, on more than one level. for one thing, the
Churhc has never objected to the principle of interest. There are some
biblical warnings against taking payment for a loan, but they refer to an
entirely different matter. In the ancient world, there were banks (see
Matt. 25:27), but the idea of debt was abhorrent. You borrowed money
because you had to, because your crops failed, maybe, and you needed the
money to keep yourself and your family alive.
But nowadays, you usually borrow money because you want to buy a new
car or start a business or something. The lender offers you the us eof
his money-his property-and has every right to expect payment for it. He's
renting you his money, you might say. If the lender asks too much for it,
you can go to someone else who asks a lower rate. As long as you have
choices at every stage of the transaction, there's no moral objection to
interest per se. Still, if you need the money to live because of some
catastrophe, and somebody takes advantage of your emergency by forcing you
to pay for a loan instead of offering outright charity, or charges unfair
interest in any circumstances, 'that's usury', which is and always has
been morally offensive to Christians. And the Church's regulations on
usury have never changed.
The reporter's analogy doesn't hold in a larger sense, either, in the
broad view of how the Church formulates and maintians her teachings. It's
not generally realized in this country [USA] tha tthe Church 'can't'
change her rulings on birth control, nor those on usury. In fact, the
Church has never changed her ruling on 'anything' pertaining to faith and
morals."
(Expressions of the Catholic Faith; A Guide to the Teachings and Practices
of the Catholic Church, by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D., pg. 12-13)
If the Church changes a ruling regarding discipline, i.e preistly
celibacy, or, as in the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the dietary
laws, or laws regarding circumscision (sp?), these are NOT matters of
faith and morals.
You propose the Church to change her teachings regarding faith and
morals. You proposed the Pope and the Magesterium NOT be the teaching
authority, it's too dangerous, remember? (Read a lot of Kung, huh?) In
short, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Padraic42
In article <5qds3t$rsq$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>> Any bishop who doesn't point out, as Bruskovizt did, that belonging to
>>these organizations, which are in opposition to authentic Church
teaching,
>>have already removed themselves from the Church, are doing their flock a
>>grave diservice, adding to confusion, heresy, and apostasy. Recall
Tony,
>>he didn't excommunicat ethem, he said, which is the truth, that they did
>>it to themselves.
>
>But was it prudent for him to point that out? There are many groups
>out there opposed to principles of the catholic faith (those who
>supported much of US foreign policy, for example): you cannot
>scapegoat some and not others. Why not leave it to God, as you said
>yourself: people excommunicate themselves?
>To repeat: are you criticizing every other bishop who did not follow
>fabian Brsukovitz's example?
>
Yes, it was prudent, and necessary for him to point that out. Would you
say it was a prudent bishop who pointed out some of his flock had fallen
into the heresy of Arainism or Nestorianism? Christ told the Apostles to
'teach all wha tHe had commanded', to not say anything is to allow error
and oppose Christ's own command. Doubtless, many didn't think they had
excommunicated themselves, by being duped by the 'theologians' of Call To
Action, modernism, etc.
Bishop Hanifen of Colorado Springs said, "As a Catholic Bishop I am
called preach with conviction all that the revealed truth of God tells me
and also faithfully to preach my Church's authentic teaching about the
revealed truth." So far, so good. However, the bBishop ends with the
inevitable 'but' of a fence sitter, more concerned with popular opinion
than the truth....
"But when I preach thus to my people, I can easily appear to them as
arrogant or rigid or out of touch, lacking in...compassion for their
personal struggles." (And backbone and conviction)
Bishop Bruskowizt preached within his duty and conviction. Those who do
not, do so out of a fear that "To preach against abortion, for example,
involves facing women and men who regard this preaching as condemnation of
them as a person." (along with preaching against active homosexuality,
artificial contraception, etc.) (Bishop Hanifen. Yet we can assume that
the good bishop would have no such qualms about preaching against racism,
or sexism, but those topics which are 'signs of the times' are some how
left off the preaching menu.
and what would the Lord say to you, or I, or them, when someone goes to
damnation because you didn't tell them? Remember Tony, the teaching of
the Church is STILL, to admonish the sinner. What the Bishops who remain
silent do is, in my opinion, worse than what the dissenting Bishops do,
because by their silence, they give tacit approval of the dissent.
Padraic42
In article <5qds6f$rtf$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>> Ho hum, give specific refereences Tony. Like your CTA counterparts,
you
>>make broad claims with no substance. You imply that because the CDF
>>agrees that Humanae Vitae is not an infallable statement that we can
>>disregard or adapt it in some way. Sorry, wrong agian.
>>
>CDF judgement on Charles Curran. Begins by stating that it is possible
>for something like HV to be infallible by the ordinary magesterium, but
>drops the issue as clearly it isn't.
So what??? Curran is an apostate for one, and Vatican II teaches we must
follow these statements from the Pope and the Magesterium even if not 'ex
cathedra'. Or don't you like to read Vatican II? You make broad
statements like "Read Lumen Gentium Chap 8, (That's the Chapter on the
Blesse dVirgin.) Yet, it does NOT say what you say it says. You claoim
that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is NOT infallable because some theologian(s)
say so. Yet, the same committee you use to try and justify your wanting
to adapt HV says it is infallable. If you use the CDF for one, why reject
it on the other? Because it doesn't suit your needs and you can't
rationalize it away. You say that the Pope's many encyclicals on the
dignity of women negates OS, yet, as Bishop Pilla points out, the issue of
women ordination is not an issue of fairness or the lack of dignity of
women.
What are you Tony? A Catholic or a theocrat?
Padraic42
In article <mh-140797...@192.168.1.1>,
m...@spam-supressor.pdasolutions.com (Mark Hartman) writes:
>Now I see your problem, Tony - you're essentially a solipsist. Makes it
>very hard to believe in anything outside yourself.
>
You may have hit the nail on the head Mark. If Tony wants to believe
something, he searches for a theologian to support it, or twists facts to
suit what he wants.
Padraic42
The Common Ground Project (CGP) was begun with the idea of dialougue and
healing the wounsd of divisiom within the Church. However, what was hoped
for and what came, were two different things. The CGP, rather than healig
division, actually made dissent easier, even encouraged. It 'sanctioned'
dissent, not dialougue and discussion.
Cardinal Bernardin, who we can only hope worked from truly noble
reasons, was the 'father' of this Project, it's protector and pusher.
However, when the CGP was revealed, Cardinals Law, Bevilacqua, Maida, and
Hickey were very critical of it. Instead of 'dialougue' they have been
relagated to the label of "hard-core right wingers". According to the
'hard-core right wingers' we have a common ground from which to begin
dialougue, 'Sacred Scripture and Tradition, mediated to us through the
authority and binding teaching of the Magesterium'. But the CGP, as
stated by Cardinal Bernardin, had certain 'conditions' for dialougue, one
being 'accountable' to Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium, and
defines 'accountable' in detail and it does not mean 'assent', 'being
submissive to or obedient to' Sacred Scripture, Tradition or the
Magesterium. It, the CGP, says that 'accountability does not mean
"conceiving of faith as an ideology, an all-encompassing doctrinal system
that produces ready explanations and practical perscriptions for every
human question. It also equates the Church with a 'chain of command,
highly institutionalized church, resembling a modern corporation with
branch offices. These comments are misleading, loaded and negative. No
orthodox Catholic, papal loyalist, regards the Church as a multi-national
corporation, nor that the faith is an ideology with ready made answers.
The door is clevery left open for dissent, since it does not define
'accountability' to faithfulness to authenitic Church teaching, the
Scriptures, Sacred Traditions, doctrinal system, or text or decree.
Likewise, the CGP's original statement defines accountability as
"serious engagement with tradition and its authoritative representatives."
Sounds ok, except 'engagement' is a very open word. Jack and Jill can
announce their 'engagement', and the Gulf War was an 'engagement' between
Iraqi and Coalition forces. Yet, one would think that the CGP would set
the boundries of this 'engagement' thus finding a 'common ground' to work
from. Well, the common ground of Sacred Scripture, Tradition the
Magesterium, etc, has been removed, but also CGP states that the
'bounderies' would be "open at times to reexamination and debate". When
coupled with the statement that "no single group or viewpoint in the
church has a complete monopoly on truth...Solutions to the church's
problems will inevitably emerge from a variety of sources", it becomes
clear that there will be no commn ground, no bounderies, and 'truth' will
be up for a vote.
for a real 'common ground dialogue' one could point to Cardinal
Bernardin's own words, some 10 years earlier, in "The Challenges We Face
Together': Reflections on Selected Questions for Archdiocesan Religious
Educator's" (Autumn 1986). I treads, "A particular teaching can
be....guaranteed by the charism of infallability...Such teaching is done
either by the 'extraordinary' magesterium ...or the 'ordinary'
magesterium...[and] it si expected that the individual will accept its
teaching...as a matter of faith. The ecclesiastical community can also
present ...'authoritative' teachings....Although such teaching is not
guaranteed by the charism of infallability...such non-infallable teaching
of the ordinary magesterium is assumed to be correct and is to recieve
what the Second Vatican Council called 'religious assent of mind and
heart' (Lumen Gentium, #25) But CGP doesn't say that.
And, CGP is in direct opposition to Bernardin's own words. Why did he
change? By his own words, he should have known CGP was seriously flawed.
If the CGP was, or is, allowed to progress, it will only sanction open and
serious dissent from the Church teaching. Only those who favor this
dissent will be allowed to 'dialogue'. That is, anyone who remains loyal
to the Pope, the Magesterium, Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, will not be
allowed to 'dialougue', as their views would be seen as dangerous and
disruptive to 'dialogue'.
Hope this helps. Contact the New Oxford Review and see if they will send
you their Jan-Feb, 1997 issue for a better explanation. (510-526-5374) or
write to them at New Oxford Review 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley, Ca. 94706.
Back issues are also available on microform through University
Microfilm's Int'l., 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, Mi. 48106.
Another magazin ethat goes into great detail on the CGP is "The Catholic
World Report" Oct. 1996. Their address is Ignatius Press (They have a
web site as well), 2515 McAllister Street, SF, Ca. 94118. Customer
service # is (800)-353-2324.
You might even find an authorative explanation of it on the EWTN library
@ www.ewtn.com.
Padraic42
In article <5qfacm$olm$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>>So what??? Curran is an apostate for one, and Vatican II teaches we
must
>>follow these statements from the Pope and the Magesterium even if not
'ex
>>cathedra'. Or don't you like to read Vatican II? You make broad
>
>Curran's status is of no interest to me: he happens to the protangonist
>in the only direct judgement for teaching against HV. Germain Grizes,
>in making the complaint, saw it as a pretext for declaring HV infallible.
>That didn't happen, because it isn't and the vast majority of theologians
>now accept that.
>The "religious submission" passage you invoke above was indeed used to
>discipline Curran. It cannot be used to discipline a lay person, as I
>am sure a canon lawyer can point out.
Big deal. And those who followed Luther left the Church with him. If
you follow non-catholic teaching, if you think HV is 'adaptable' (contrary
to Vatican II AND Lumen Gentium #25) and that OS is not infallable, you
are outside the Church. PLain and simple.
Odd isn't it, you use the CDF (btw, the other name for it is the
Inquisition) to justify your view that HV is adaptable, though the CDF
never said that, only that it wasn't infallable. Yet, disregard the CDF
when they say that OS IS infallable. See any contradiction here Tony?
Padraic42
In article <5qfatq$os8$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
am...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>>Tony, do you understand the difference between usury and legitimate
loans?
>
>As an economist, I can tell you there is no effective difference so long
>as the market rate is applied. Read what i said above about international
>capital markets.
>
Careful Tony, you're showing your ignorance here. Again: there is a BIG
difference between usury and borrowing money to buy a car. Economics has
nothing to do with it. The Church's teaching on usury hasn't changed, as
the post showed. Again, you have swallowed the bull hook, line and
sinker. You have replaced the truth and sound doctrine for fables.
Padraic42
In article <19970715175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bmcc...@aol.com (BMccahill) writes:
>Tony said:
>
><The church's sexual teachings arise out of the sexually
><pessimistic society of late antiquity, which taught that sex was
><disgusting, a necessary evil.
>
>Ahh..so Mary Magdeline came AFTER St. Augustine? And when Jesus said that
>if one even thinks of sex outside of marriage he has committed the sin,
He
>really didn't mean it?
>
Talk about buying a line, betcha Tony even bought swamp land in Florida!
I must assume that Christ's admonistion to the adulterss to go and sin no
more was conditioned by a repressive culture? You know, I would love to
know where people get this notion. I read in Scriptures where the
relations of a husband and wife was anything but disgusting or a
necessary evil. Rather, St. Paul wrote: ""The husband should fulfill his
conjugal obligations toward his wife, the wife hers toward her husband. (I
guess the modernist would call this 'forcing' the wife) A wife does not
belong to herself but to her husband; equally, a husband does not belong
to himself but to his wife. Do not deprive one another, unless there is
mutual consent for a time..." (1 Cor. 7:3-5) Now, this does not take the
fornicator, sodomite, etc. off the hook, but this hardly shows a sexually
repressed culture.
Agreeably, compared to the sexual free for all going on now, they were
down right celibate in comparison. In fact, the only cultures that might
come clsoe to our present day sexual frenzy woulkd be pagan Rome, Sodom
and Gomorah.
BMccahill
Tony said:
<The church's sexual teachings arise out of the sexually
<pessimistic society of late antiquity, which taught that sex was
<disgusting, a necessary evil.
Ahh..so Mary Magdeline came AFTER St. Augustine? And when Jesus said that
if one even thinks of sex outside of marriage he has committed the sin, He
really didn't mean it?
BAM
Anthony M Annett
In article <19970717163...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Padraic42 <padr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5qj4i9$5et$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>,
>am...@inibara.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M Annett) writes:
>
>>Get back to me when you learn something about the theory of time
>>perference.
>>
> ?????????????????????????????????
>
> Now we use 'theory' try and prove something? Get back to us when you
>regain your faith.
>
It's economics, I wouldn't expect you to understand.
As for my faith, it's fine thank you very much.