Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[SpiritMeadow]

Spiritmeadow, why do you talk endlessly about primacy of conscience and then completely disregard the primacy of conscience of doctors in performing abortions? Sounds like you tailor your argumentation to your own predetermined beliefs.

First I do not talk “endlessly” about primacy of conscience. I was talking about it with one person and now several have chimed in. I’m trying to respond is all. Mostly by giving them the cite to their own CCC.

Secondly you are conflating two things. Primacy of conscience deals with the church and how we respond when we are at odds with teachings.

I assume and would hope that any doctor who feels that he cannot perform any procedure for reasons of conscience would not do so. Sometimes the penalties are high for that, but as many would suggest, there is no finer calling than to stand up against the world and stand your ground on what you believe is right.

Sounds like you are running out of arguments. And I don’t know what the argument is about. We are both against abortion. We differ as to how to deal with that problem.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spiritmeadow,

I’ve got an MD friend who went to special trouble to make the original Hippocratic oath and verified that it included the prohibition on providing abortions (chemical or surgical, IIRC). You should verify your suspicions better before you hit send.

On a similar note, you said several times in this thread that the label “pro-life” is a cynical marketing ploy designed by anti-abortion activists to manipulate. According to testimony by former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson that I’ve personally heard, it was the “pro-choice” label that was intentionally cooked up as a marketing tool FIRST. This was BEFORE Roe ever happened. He should know, he was part of the initial pre-Roe push to legitimize abortion in the minds of the public. His story is a stunning one. I strongly recommend you look him up and give him a read. Might surprise some of your assumptions about the history of abortion in America.

And thanks for the CCC links. I’ll read them tonight and digest them.

That is why it was called a suspicion. I don’t find it of great interest, but I’m fascinated that you have a friend who made the Hippocratic oath. It must not be very old then I assume. I thought it was centuries old. I guess I really am mistaken.

One testimony doesn’t make a fact you know. I do think it was the anti-abortionists who first changed to pro-life. but regardless, it is simantics and not much more. It doesn’t get us one whit closer to solving the problem does it?

 

[manualman]

… I did not say there was any law that ordered doctors to perform abortions. I said that I believed that in a public hospital, run by the state or country, such an option may not be available to a staff doctor. THis has ZERO to do with Catholic hospitals.

I may be jumping in, but you are essentially proposing a de facto ban on (faithful)catholic OBGYNs in public hospitals, right? You’re OK with that? In your mind, the woman’s right to a convenient abortion is more sacred than the doctor’s right to obey his conscience and still practice his profession? What happened to that sacred primacy of conscience?

 

[manualman]

That is why it was called a suspicion. I don’t find it of great interest, but I’m fascinated that you have a friend who made the Hippocratic oath. It must not be very old then I assume. I thought it was centuries old. I guess I really am mistaken.

You lawyerly devil you. His wasn’t THE original oath. He used the original WORDING. I’ll ask how far back they looked for you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It seems that this thread has ended pretty much as to the subject. Mostly everyone wants to talk about abortion and other issues. You may continue of course, since I don’t control this thread. I thank those that stayed on topic and actually provided some interesting and thoughtful ideas and thoughts on the subject. I remain convinced that there will not be a serious “split” in the RCC. Most of you I think agree. I think we proved something initially at least, in that most of us were able to discuss the topic without letting it get to a Protestant v Catholic discussion, which it never was. That it is turning that way to some degree now, suggests to me it is over.

I’ll keep in touch with the thread but let the rest of you discuss endlessly the simantics of the abortion issue. Sadly, it moves no where, and doesn’t address the issue in my mind at all. It would be interesting to discuss the ways in which we can join forces to reduce the number of abortions, but I’ve never seen anyone here interested in that kind of conversation. Thanks again for the civility that mostly adhered to.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

Sanity? Please. Massive spending, the illegal and unconstitutional setting up of czars, expanding the executive branch, embryo killing and cloning policies, tax evasion by public officials in the Obama administration, and Obama’s near silence condemning the atrocious human rights violations during the uprising in Iran, are all a return to sanity? I don’t think so. Quite the opposite in fact.

Precisely, It’s hard to believe that so many people that are obviously “catholics in name only” actually agree with this drivel. They ignore our teachings, ignore the catechism,and in essence condemn themselves. But, really, I’ve threadjacked.
KEEP THE FAITH!
G1j

 

[Dale_M]

Nope, you’re suspicions are incorrect. I checked it out. The original text condemns abortion, abortifacients, and euthanasia.

Hmmm… yes, you are right, but perhaps not too much should be made of it.

The Hippocratic oath was originally for Hippocratic physicians, a subset of physicians who followed his philosophy. The oath didn’t become popular in the West until after World War II, in reaction to the medical atrocities committed.

Many physicians practicing today are surprised to learn that the first recorded administration of the Hippocratic Oath in a medical school setting was at the University of Wittenberg in Germany in 1508 and that it did not become a standard part of a formal medical school graduation ceremony until 1804, when it was incorporated into the commencement exercises at Montpellier, France.(2) The custom spread in fits and starts on both sides of the Atlantic during the 19th century, but even well into the 20th century relatively few American physicians formally took the oath. According to a survey conducted for the Association of American Medical Colleges in 1928, for example, only 19 percent of the medical schools in North America included the oath in their commencement exercises.

scienceweek.com/2004/sa040917-6.htm
(the article originally was published in the New England Journal of Medicine)

The article mentions that the wording of the Oath has been tinkered with throughout history, reflecting the changing values, customs, and beliefs associated with the ethical practice of medicine. For example, only 11% of the oaths taken in the US and Canada invoke a deity.

So the Hippocratic Oath shouldn’t be looked upon as ancient tradition, with ages old wisdom. It really is a modern creation, although with ancient roots.

 

[ClementRome]

then why in the Tridentine Mass and in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostym in the Byzantine Catholic Churches do they say that the Blood was shed for many? And why in the Official catechism of the Council of Trent is it written that it was with good reason that the words for the Consecration of the Wine, it is said that the Blood was shed for many.
this points out the variance in CAtholic teaching. You say that the Blood was shed for all, but in the Catechism of the Council of Trent it says that it was with good reason that the words of the Consecration of the Wine say that the Blood was shed for many.

You do not understand the context of the Latin nor the grammar that imparted. The Church never taught that Christ’s blood was shed only for a select people. The phrase was translated “for you and for all”. Certain sentences can talk to the laymen in the form of “objective redemption” or “subjective redemption”. To actually think the latin suggests limited atonement is quite foolish. The inclusion of the words ““for all”” in the consecratory formula no more implies the error that all men will necessarily be saved than the previous consecratory formula “for you and for many”.

Moreover, the contrary proposition, that Christ did not die or shed His blood for all men was formally condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653. Therefore, no error is advanced by the use of the words ““for all”” in the consecratory formula; Christ’s blood was shed for all. Nevertheless, as the Council of Trent defined, even though ‘“Christ died for all”’ (2 Cor. 5:15), still not all receive the benefit of His death, but only those to whom the merit of His passion is imparted” (Decree on Justification, ch. 3).

So its its not a doctrinal difference between the Churches. It is simply a difference context of grammar and the objective or subjective forms of Christ’s redemption being addressed. I mean do you actually think when the preist says ““Drink of this, all of you, this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins”” actually means that its just you?

So no, your argument hardly qualifies as a doctrinal difference between laymen. In fact there are around 70 different formulas. All have little differences gramatically, but all validate the same doctrine and beliefs the Church teaches. And where does it say in the Council of Trent that it says “for many” as a good good reason as you claim.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Marsha,

It should be noted that they decided defining the dogma of Mary Co-Redemptrix was not a good idea, they did not say it was not true. They feared the resulting repercussions and ramifications of defining such a dogma in terms of Protestant/Catholic ecumenism.

Let me be as clear as I can be on this subject, then leave it:

If there is any doubt whatsoever that these potential dogmas are not merely inopportune, but always wrong, we will have serious problems in the future. The ideas should be not only “shelved” but condemned. The damage done by the church in the past is bad enough without introducing yet another wedge between the RC and the rest of Apostolic Christianity.

No Latin Catholic should pretend for one minute that the RC is the only church advocating Christian unity (while the Orthodox “don’t seem to care” about unity) if they believe these ideas and hope or pray for their proclamation by a Pope. I am telling you sincerely, I care deeply for Christian unity and I don’t want to see your church muck it up…yet again!

If these dogmas are proclaimed before reconciliation it will put the dagger to the heart of our dreams of intercommunion. If these dogmas are held back for some “future more opportune moment” it will provoke another schism between our churches, possibly for good.

Someday, the dogma may be defined.

Waiting until your church gets the Protestants (or worse still, some trusting Orthodox) into it’s grasp before pulling this rabbit out of the hat would be chicanery. Suggesting that as a possibility is all the more reason not to trust the RC today.

http://img.tfd.com/wn/3A/6015E-chicanery.gif

 

[bobzills]

You do not understand the context of the Latin nor the grammar that imparted. The Church never taught that Christ’s blood was shed only for a select people. The phrase was translated “for you and for all”. Certain sentences can talk to the laymen in the form of “objective redemption” or “subjective redemption”. To actually think the latin suggests limited atonement is quite foolish. The inclusion of the words ““for all”” in the consecratory formula no more implies the error that all men will necessarily be saved than the previous consecratory formula “for you and for many”.

Moreover, the contrary proposition, that Christ did not die or shed His blood for all men was formally condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653. Therefore, no error is advanced by the use of the words ““for all”” in the consecratory formula; Christ’s blood was shed for all. Nevertheless, as the Council of Trent defined, even though ‘“Christ died for all”’ (2 Cor. 5:15), still not all receive the benefit of His death, but only those to whom the merit of His passion is imparted” (Decree on Justification, ch. 3).

So its its not a doctrinal difference between the Churches. It is simply a difference context of grammar and the objective or subjective forms of Christ’s redemption being addressed. I mean do you actually think when the preist says ““Drink of this, all of you, this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins”” actually means that its just you?

So no, your argument hardly qualifies as a doctrinal difference between laymen. In fact there are around 70 different formulas. All have little differences gramatically, but all validate the same doctrine and beliefs the Church teaches. And where does it say in the Council of Trent that it says “for many” as a good good reason as you claim.

I said it was in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

 

[bobzills]

Hello Marsha, Let me be as clear as I can be on this subject, then leave it:

If there is any doubt whatsoever that these potential dogmas are not merely inopportune, but always wrong, we will have serious problems in the future. The ideas should be not only “shelved” but condemned. The damage done by the church in the past is bad enough without introducing yet another wedge between the RC and the rest of Apostolic Christianity.

No Latin Catholic should pretend for one minute that the RC is the only church advocating Christian unity (while the Orthodox “don’t seem to care” about unity) if they believe these ideas and hope or pray for their proclamation by a Pope. I am telling you sincerely, I care deeply for Christian unity and I don’t want to see your church muck it up…yet again!

If these dogmas are proclaimed before reconciliation it will put the dagger to the heart of our dreams of intercommunion. If these dogmas are held back for some “future more opportune moment” it will provoke another schism between our churches, possibly for good. Waiting until your church gets the Protestants (or worse still, some trusting Orthodox) into it’s grasp before pulling this rabbit out of the hat would be chicanery. Suggesting that as a possibility is all the more reason not to trust the RC today.

http://img.tfd.com/wn/3A/6015E-chicanery.gif

You speak about reunion. But I don;t see much hope for it unless the RCC clarifies what was said a Vatican I about papal supremacy.

 

[Peter_J]

Hello Marsha, Let me be as clear as I can be on this subject, then leave it:

If there is any doubt whatsoever that these potential dogmas are not merely inopportune, but always wrong, we will have serious problems in the future. The ideas should be not only “shelved” but condemned.

If Co-redemptrix is false (which, I imagine, from your p.o.v. is not so much an “if” as a certainty) then it’s certainly possible that it will someday be condemned. But in any case, I very seriously doubt that any such condemnation will come any time in the near future, if only because of the divisions that it would create.

 

[Eleve]

Well said. Are you sure you aren’t Catholic?

I’m flattered, but I’m quite sure I’m not. I have certainly been looking at the Church and reading about it a lot (and hanging out here, which, in other forums, can be a good way to learn), but I haven’t received the Sacrament of Confirmation and I’m kept away by personal disputes with a few Church teachings. I am certainly interested, though, and I plan on taking an RCIA class once I’m a bit more independent of my staunchly Protestant home ties.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

It would be helpful if you would calm down a bit and actually read before going off with incorrect conclusions. I did not say there was any law that ordered doctors to perform abortions. I said that I believed that in a public hospital, run by the state or country, such an option may not be available to a staff doctor. THis has ZERO to do with Catholic hospitals.

This is all my fault. I should never have taken you off “ignore”. Well, I’ll just fix that right now.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Precisely, It’s hard to believe that so many people that are obviously “catholics in name only” actually agree with this drivel. They ignore our teachings, ignore the catechism,and in essence condemn themselves. But, really, I’ve threadjacked.
KEEP THE FAITH!
G1j

No, you haven’t threadjacked. The issue was a possible split in the Church. Abortion/artificial contraceptives could well be the root of such a split. That is why the thread kept veering towards those topics.

 

[StrawberryJam]

This is all my fault. I should never have taken you off “ignore”. Well, I’ll just fix that right now.

Oh please add me along with her if you really are that kind of a poster. Pleeeze.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is all my fault. I should never have taken you off “ignore”. Well, I’ll just fix that right now.

Good for you, Marsha! You go girl! I did it a while back and it’s just awesome! LOL:thumbsup:

 

[StrawberryJam]

Good for you, Marsha! You go girl! I did it a while back and it’s just awesome! LOL:thumbsup:

If she is in ignore mode, why are you able to reply to her posts?

 

[Eleve]

Marsha is ignoring SpiritMeadow; it doesn’t apply to gurney. Anyway, even if Marsha were ignoring gurney he could still read her posts and reply to them; it would just be a little futile, since she wouldn’t be able to read them!

 

[Hesychios]

Marsha is ignoring SpiritMeadow; it doesn’t apply to gurney. Anyway, even if Marsha were ignoring gurney he could still read her posts and reply to them; it would just be a little futile, since she wouldn’t be able to read them!

I use the ignore feature quite liberally myself, and I expect some ignore me.

If it gives people peace, I say that’s fine. More people should take advantage of it. It’s not really good form to tell someone you have them on ignore, it can be seen as an unnecessary public putdown…

Anyway, before one logs in one can see everything, so it only works if we really want it to.