Posted on 07/30/2002 10:54:47 AM PDT by Polycarp
Do you think they had plenty of monks and nuns in the tenth century? We don't. Our women religious have either disappeared or they've joined forces with radical anti-Catholic organizations like CFFC and the We Are Church movement.
And how many of the wicked religious of the 10th century (by the way -- the dates they post here are from the 11th, not the 10th) went around promoting contraception and abortion? Probably not many. How many privately denied the existence of mortal sin, or even Hell? How many denied the Real Presence and the very divinity of Christ Himself?
Seems to me that the 10th and 11th centuries pale in comparison to the vice of the 21st century, and not vice-versa.
Just my two cents....
I'd hate to be limited to only posts which are agreeable to all. It would be like reading a diocesan newspaper every time I log in.
That was my motivation for starting this thread and formulating these thoughts.
You will be sorely missed. Hurry back.
Ouch...a vivid word picture of either the lower level of purgatory or actual levels of Hell (depending of course upon which diocesan paper we're dealing with...)
Greetings and welcome from a fellow "post-Vatican II brat" (as an elder Catholic friend calls us.)
I was there recently during a legal briefing by a colleague for a few of their lawyers on the abortion breast cancer link. Great place.
maybe a School of Journalism ought to be encouraged too?Excellent idea.
Perhaps with a minor in Diocesan newspapers?
Diocesan papers have destroyed many independant Catholic periodicals and hurt the rest, according to the publisher of one prominent paper I've talked to. Regular Catholics who see the budget line paying for the coerced subscription to the diocesan ragsheet might otherwise have subscribed to a worthwhile Catholic periodical.
I'd like to see diocesan papers cease to exist, since few are orthodox and substantive. Ours is nothing but a rag sheet for all our local bishop's PR pics.
I'd like to see certain diocesan papers cease to exist, since few are orthodox and substantive, but not all of them. For instance, Arlinton VA's paper was excellent any time I've seen it.
Not intending to beat a dead horse, or be offensive at all, I ask, in response to:I’m going to answer a question with a question. Do you think Luther wrote his famous Ninety-five Theses intending to deny God his due? Do you think Luther intended to act against God by nailing them to the Castle door? I don’t state this to compare Sungenis to Luther. I state this to make it clear that one can actually fail to give glory to God, despite one’s best intent.My view here, and take this as merely my personal opinion, which you are entirely free to reject, despise, fold, bend, spindle or mutilate, is that the original posting did not give glory to God, and I would not have posted it here.Do you think that Robert Sungenis wrote that piece intending to deny God His due? Do you think Robert Sungenis intended to act against God with that article?
You again seem very bothered by our disagreement on this issue. We could agree that you had the best of intent, as did Mr. Sungenis, but still disagree that the posting was called for.
I also note that Mr. Sungenis, in his preface to the statement on Canon Law you quoted above, stated:
In fact, the Church's own Canon Law demands us to bring these concerns to the hierarchy in hopes that they will mend their ways.I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with this. I think we have an obligation to write to our hierarchy and tell them what we need, what concerns us, and the like. But this, of course, is not what he did. He didn’t write to the Pope or his Cardinals about Assisi, he published an article on the internet (and I presume elsewhere) for mass consumption. If that is his justification for the article, that the article is supposed to be an appeal to the hierarchy, than there is no logical reason for publishing it.
If that were your reason for posting it here, there would similarly be no reason for posting it here. I am quite confident the Pope does not read Free Republic.
This is the whole point of the questions I suggested above. Ask why you are posting it, and does the post give glory to God? How does God benefit from your actions. We will all make mistakes, but posts that have that as their criteria will, over the long run, be far different than posts that don’t.
As Catholics we are called to perfection. We are called to give every moment of our lives to God. Obviously, neither of us will achieve that level of perfection, but there is every reason to try. Similarly, there is every reason to try with your postings.
Was he wrong in his interpretation of Canon Law when he said:He is quoting Canon law just fine. I ask, however, which of his “needs, especially spiritual ones, and [his] desires” he was making known? The holy need to rant? Of course this article doesn’t satisfy a legitimate need he has. Therefore I assume he actually places his article in the latter part, the right to make his opinion known to other Christian faithful.. I note that I am not currently taking issue with the fact that he wrote the article and sent it to other Catholics. I taken issue with its posting here, to a secular website, and bumped to various non Catholics, and at the very least found by fundamentalists who used the opportunity to rip into the Church. Please explain to me how that action was with “due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors?”According to Canon Law: "The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons" (Can 212-2, 3).
I am more than curious how posting it here was an action taken with due regard to the integrity of the faith, much less the action being reverent toward the Pope. If you can explain that, you justify your side of the disagreement (though we may still disagree, I will have to recognize that you at least have a thought out position). If you can’t, you should admit the posting was of questionable appropriateness.
patent
I found the article compelling, I was curious as to the thoughts of others as to the merits and I was rewarded with those thoughts. I am surprised that you didn't directly answer my question, although you imply (with a non sequiter dig at me and the author by dragging Luther into the discussion -- do you really think either the author or I are heretics out to destroy the Church?) you think the answer is a resounding "No". Then you clarify your thinking that the issue was not really the author's intent but mine. Not that you stint on taking the author to the woodshed. You assume facts not in evidence to do so --"But this, of course, is not what he did", how do you know that? It may well be that he did, in fact, appeal to the hierarchy and they failed to answer. We do not know. We do know that the same Canon says, "...and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful,..." which I daresay publication does. You disagree.
Since, in fact, I posted the article in no small part to show how our Church was facing similar trials to that the Lutheran congregations are facing and I "pinged" a poster of the Lutheran faith, that seems to indicate to you some sort of bad faith. Why? Assisi I and II "pinged" many pagan faiths, not only to discuss issues in common, but to celebrate their various prayers in common (or at least in the same place as) with the Holy Father, including heretical prayers, schismatic prayers and even pagan prayers, practices and sacrifices.
As always, I find your posts erudite and informative, if not always compelling. Thank you.
I ask, however, which of his “needs, especially spiritual ones, and [his] desires” he was making known? The holy need to rant?
Clearly the need for instruction, the same as mine. The apparent paradox of the actions at Assisi versus the very words of our beloved Pope in Redemptoris Missio, the paradox the author lays out with real clarity and which you alternatively ignore or mock.
Maybe this should be amended to explain that the object of the Pope's authority is to preserve the traditions of the Church?
although you imply (with a non sequiter dig at me and the author by dragging Luther into the discussion -- do you really think either the author or I are heretics out to destroy the Church?)Narses, this is an absolutely unfair comment by you. I made it clear that “I don’t state this to compare Sungenis to Luther. I state this to make it clear that one can actually fail to give glory to God, despite one’s best intent.” Despite making my intent clear, you claim it’s a dig at you (whom I didn’t reference in that section, so it can’t possibly be a dig at you) and a dig at the author, and go on to wonder if I think of the two of you as “heretics out to destroy the Church?”
I expressly made it clear that was not what I was doing, I was demonstrating that the best of intent does not guarantee it gives glory to God.
If you are going to twist my words to imply I mean something I expressly denied, I am done discussing this with you.
That comment is not well taken. Good night.
patent +AMDG
you can tell I was bothered by the comment. I apologize for reacting angrily. We can talk more tomorrow if you like.
God bless,
patent
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.