Posted on 06/22/2009 7:28:34 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
You wrote:
“Doesn’t matter. All priests in South Bend must have faculties from the bishop of South Bend, and are under his authority in other ways as well.”
You still don’t see the simple point. I check and McBrien is not a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. He also, however, is not a diocesan priest. At least he’s not a diocesan priest in Indiana! He’s incardinated in CT, not IN. Even if the Indiana ordinary denied him faculties, that would not stop him from teaching because he is from another diocese. Anything of any seriousness would be appealed to Rome and might take years to resolve.
“And a cleric living in concubinage is in violation of canon law.”
Agreed. Now prove that that is the case - that he is living in concubinage. Who’s going to do that?
“The only thing protecting McBrien from laicization is the absence of testosterone in the bloodstreams of the relevant authorities.”
No. No bishop in Indiana can do that by canon law. They could only request that and only after a long, long legal process.
“McBrien is a priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport, IIRC.”
Hartford.
“Which is an indictment of the bishop of Bridgeport, as well as the bishop of South Bend.”
Maybe, but he’s even further removed from the scene and even less able to prove anything.
You wrote:
“Common in the sense of Cardinals having descendants.”
No, actually that isn’t all that common either.
People do things for reasons.
There are REASONS
folks in a certain group are
MUCH MORE INTENSELY, MUCH MORE EMOTIONALLY, MUCH MORE STRIDENTLY
DEFENSIVE ABOUT, FIERCE ABOUT, DECLARATIVE ABOUT . . .
Mary
and the rest of the list above
vs
their asserting themselves in behalf of The Bible—GOD’S WORD.
What do you think the reasons are?
What do I think the reason is? Love. The Sacredness of Scripture isn’t in question and hasn’t been insulted.
She had other children.
**Mary
The Pope
The Magisterical
The Edifice
The Structure
!!!!TRADITION!!!!
The Saints**
All in the Bible, my dear.
**the RUBBER DICTIONARY strikes again!**
That was TOO close! I had just swallowed the last of my before bedtime brownie & milk before reading that! L O L !
Doesn’t wash, with me.
The only explanation I can think of that fits the observations is
a marked difference in levels of adoration for one vs the other.
And, in fact, RC’s seemingly minimalist perspective on Scripture has been spoken of many times, hereon.
The emotions then generated are about as excited as those from watching paint peel.
Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.
THEN the emotions flare intensely.
Only in Rubber Bibles.
I’d apologize but it would be disingenuous.
I am glad you spared your keyboard.
LOL.
I really should force my fingers to walk away from this carrying on.
LOL.
So the cultists claim.
Never.
You wrote:
“Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.”
Actually the Bible never once says Mary had other children. Please don’t say that the “brethren” or “sisters” mentioned prove Mary had other children. Christians with exception always believed they were not Mary’s and not full brothers and sisters of Jesus. It is noteworthy that no other person is actually said to be Mary’s child. No one.
I think we have very different Bibles and very different dictionaries.
However . . . cheers.
Heading for bed.
Has this man been formally disciplined by the Church?
Carrying on?
Hey, even good soil can get extra hard in a dry spell, and require the tractor to drop down a gear or two to pull the plow through. Getting the job done sometimes is just a matter of getting tough when the going gets tougher.
But, I guess even Paul gave up on some hardheads.
Goodnite, and Lord Bless
Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.
Well, where does Scripture make the claim that she birthed other children? There is mention of "brothers" of Christ at the wedding at Cana in some translations (the original word actually means "relatives" and is translated in the Douay-Rheims as "bretheren". That doesn't mean they came from the same womb), but in all the years of hearing the gospels proclaimed I don't recall hearing that the Blessed Mother birthed other children. So, if it's there....
And, in fact, RC’s seemingly minimalist perspective on Scripture has been spoken of many times, hereon.
Last I knew, RC was a soda that tasted a lot like Dr. Pepper.
Catholics, OTOH, don't think much about Scripture unless we're specifically studying it, because it's such an integral part of worship, that it's a natural part of life. Take a gander sometime at the Mass threads and morning and evening prayer. It's all scripture. We all know the Prodigal Son better than the Canon. We don't actively defend Scripture because we don't have to. Now, defending what scripture SAYS, that's another story. The parts of the Faith that are constantly maligned are going to invoke more vitriol because we are constantly having to explain the theology.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have an incredibly long day ahead of me and need to pray and get some shut-eye.
LOLOL. Yep. Lamps thrown. Tables overturned. Men leaving in huffs.
How do you know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.