Jump to content

Menu

In light of BJU versus A Beka question...


Recommended Posts

How is Rod and Staff in the religion department? Do they lean towards any particular religion? Is their grammar program heavy in religious teaching?

 

I'm hesitant to use "religious" curricula just for the reasons that are stated in the BJU/A Beka thread (anti-Catholism, Catholic haters, etc.). I want my children to learn math as math and English as English. As for the religious learning, we have a Bible curriculum and Sunday school to teach them our beliefs. I do not mind the occasional story about Joseph being thrown in or Bible verses here and there throughout the pages, but I don't want something that will tell them they need to be Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc.

 

ANY information about the R&S materials would be very helpful. Thanks!

 

:lurk5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi -

We are using the R&S English grade 4 right now (and are loving it!) and haven't found anything that points specifically to a certain religion. It is God-honoring and that is a theme in many of the exercises, but I haven't seen anything specific about religions. I believe that R&S is a Mennonite group.

We are non-denominational Christians and have not run across anything that has raised a flag.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,

Deb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have used the grammar books 3 - 8 and have not seen anything specifically anti-Catholic, though I did find some offensive comments in the 5th grade history / geography book. In their spelling book 6, one of the sentences was "Most Negroes prefer to be called Blacks." (The spelling word was Negroes, to teach the plural of a word ending with "o" and I suspect they felt they were being pretty compassionate and avant garde with that sentence.)

 

I think it was Nan in Mass who spoke so eloquently about why she liked R & S grammar. You get a glimpse of a world and a people through this text, an agrarian, peace-loving people. It has given us the opportunity to discuss many aspects of Christianity that we would not otherwise have encountered. I love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a paragraph that needed to be proofread and corrected. It talked about the pastor visiting someone in the hospital and asking about the state of his soul. The sentence said something along the lines of: "Revealing his Calvinist leanings, the man said, 'If God wants me, let Him come and get me.'"

 

I thought that was such a straw man attack on Calvinism that I laughed out loud. I've been through the 3 through 6 English books with my kids. I own the rest, but haven't looked through them as closely.

 

I think I might have seen a sentence or two that indicated the Mennonite stance on pacifism, but they were so subtle that unless you knew the Mennonite position on war, you might miss them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, would you say that, as a whole, it's more about having high moral standards versus being "religious?"

 

That is a good summary. I have found very little that I say, wait a minute that isn't quite what we believe in our family/faith. And then explain to the boys where I believe differently. I have actually had to do that more with the boys BJU Science then I have with R&S English and Math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good summary. I have found very little that I say, wait a minute that isn't quite what we believe in our family/faith. And then explain to the boys where I believe differently. I have actually had to do that more with the boys BJU Science then I have with R&S English and Math.

 

OK, thanks. That's what I was hoping to hear. It looks like a good solid program, but I like to try to keep the Bible study separate from the other subjects as much as possible. Not sure why that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used both R&S and BJU English, and quite frankly you will find far less religion in BJU than you will in R&S! And you will find hardly any (if any) in BJU Math. :confused: BJU isn't a curriculum that feels it need to put a Christian word or concept into each and every sentence. And it does not preach at you...meaning try to convert you to certain Christian beliefs. Now, if you use their Bible curriculum, well, then they will teach your child bible...and when we used it we found absolutely nothing amiss...but they do not teach bible doctrine in their Math and English.

 

In fact I am looking through my son's 6th grade English text and I have to search hard to find any religious talk at all! Seriously.

 

Here are the typical sentences used in our 6th grade English text:

 

Alicia will probably give Emma her old referee uniform.

I went to my sisters house last Thursday.

The foxes tail was big and fluffy.

Danger and hardship were constant on the frontier.

I baby-sat at our church banquet.

Jane was active in politics, too, and joined the National American Women's Suffrage Association.

My principal prayed for missions during the assembly.

Paul wrote thirteen epistles in God's Word.

Jared memorized several verses today.

 

I had to actually search for "Christian" sentences. If any of those above are offensive to you, then yes, definitely steer clear of BJU's English Grammar. :001_huh:

 

I am not trying to talk you into using BJU, but please don't base a decision on the ugly talk from that other thread. Investigate the curriculum for yourself...you may be pleasantly surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good summary. I have found very little that I say, wait a minute that isn't quite what we believe in our family/faith. And then explain to the boys where I believe differently. I have actually had to do that more with the boys BJU Science then I have with R&S English and Math.

 

You will not like/agree with BJU's science if you are not a young earth creationist. If you ARE a young earth creationist, then I doubt you would have too many problems with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rod and Staff English books are very "religious" in the sense of including lots of Bible stories in the exercises, and talking a lot about going to church, reading the Bible, and so forth. Bible verses are also used in some grammar exercises. (There are also grammar exercises about animals, plants, and farming--the exercises aren't exclusively Bible stories and verses.)

 

They are not "preachy", however, especially in the lower grades. They believe young children should simply be presented with the Bible, and not asked to make decisions. So, unlike BJU and especially Abeka, they will not be asking children in elementary school to accept Jesus as their Savior or tell their friends about Jesus.

 

However, my older two boys used to complain that the people in the Rod and Staff grammar books "don't do anything but go to church, do chores, and read the Bible". My daughter (3rd grade) has also noted that all the women in the illustrations wear head coverings and dresses (part of Mennonite belief), though this is never mentioned as a doctrine in the text. Since the books were written for Mennonite children, it is assumed that the children would be accustomed to seeing women with head coverings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used Rod & Staff English 4-7 and never had a problem. Sure, since they're Mennonite that's the "bent" they come from. My kids thought some of the writing assignments were funny, since they had to do with farming and things my kids really know nothing about. The way they dress in the illustrations was expected because of their religion. But none of that was a negative for us. We love R&S English!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not trying to talk you into using BJU, but please don't base a decision on the ugly talk from that other thread. Investigate the curriculum for yourself...you may be pleasantly surprised.

 

Ugly talk? Calling Roman Catholicism an anathema was the only "ugly talk" I recall in that thread, the rest was a straight forward discussion of BJUs past racism and anti-Catholicism, including the experiences of conservative Protestant Christians who witnessed the bigotry first-hand.

 

A link for those who those who missed the discussion.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98018

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use R&S grammar. (I don't buy anything from BJU or A Beka.) It's a good solid grammar text. The illustrations are Mennonite. The text does stick pretty much with three topics: Biblical stories, farm/animal life, and kids playing or working. I really like how there isn't much Mennonite-specific content--the Biblical material is just that (Biblical) and there isn't anything particular that my kids wouldn't recognize. Whereas when I looked at an A Beka text, there were sentences about altar calls and singing specific hymns--a lot of cultural stuff that my kids are not familiar with at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugly talk? Calling Roman Catholicism an anathema was the only "ugly talk" I recall in that thread, the rest was a straight forward discussion of BJUs past racism and anti-Catholicism, including the experiences of conservative Protestant Christians who witnessed the bigotry first-hand.

 

A link for those who those who missed the discussion.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98018

 

:confused: What are you talking about? If you are at all suggesting that *I* said Roman Catholics were anathema, then that is beneath you Spy Car. I never said that, nor do I believe that. I have Catholic friends and I do not think they are anathema (****ed to hell). Do I believe in all of their doctrines, no I do not. But that does not make me a Catholic hater. One can dislike a belief system without disliking the believer.

 

What I did point out was that the supposed ugliness goes in both directions since it is the Roman Catholic canons that say that we, protestant Christians and our beliefs are anathema. It is awfully one-sided to point at BJU and say they are catholic haters, without also pointing the finger back at the papal decrees which have been in effect since the 1500's.

 

This, again (AGAIN) has nothing whatsoever to do with what is CONTAINED in BJU's curriculum. The OP apparently already read the other thread and that is why she was concerned enough to begin this one. Had I known you would follow me here and try to stir up trouble I would not have posted. I was only trying to help her make a more educated decision on what is actually contained in the BJU English and Math. If she chooses to steer clear of BJU because of their past policy's, that is surely her right and I can certainly respect that. Good grief, move on already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used Rod & Staff English 4-7 and never had a problem. Sure, since they're Mennonite that's the "bent" they come from. My kids thought some of the writing assignments were funny, since they had to do with farming and things my kids really know nothing about. The way they dress in the illustrations was expected because of their religion. But none of that was a negative for us. We love R&S English!

 

:iagree: It is NOT a secular curriculum, for sure! But if you don't mind historical Bible-themed sentences then I could see no problem.

 

I especially remember one illustration... we were to use adjectives to describe an illustration. The drawing was of a young boy, being chased by a pig. His shoe had flown off (was in the air if I remember correctly) and he was being bitten on the heel by the pig! I laughed so hard! To me, the examples and illustrations are sweet and gentle, reminiscent of a simpler time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused: What are you talking about? If you are at all suggesting that *I* said Roman Catholics were anathema, then that is beneath you Spy Car. I never said that, nor do I believe that. I have Catholic friends and I do not think they are anathema (****ed to hell). Do I believe in all of their doctrines, no I do not. But that does not make me a Catholic hater. One can dislike a belief system without disliking the believer.

 

What I did point out was that the supposed ugliness goes in both directions since it is the Roman Catholic canons that say that we, protestant Christians and our beliefs are anathema. It is awfully one-sided to point at BJU and say they are catholic haters, without also pointing the finger back at the papal decrees which have been in effect since the 1500's.

 

This, again (AGAIN) has nothing whatsoever to do with what is CONTAINED in BJU's curriculum. The OP apparently already read the other thread and that is why she was concerned enough to begin this one. Had I known you would follow me here and try to stir up trouble I would not have posted. I was only trying to help her make a more educated decision on what is actually contained in the BJU English and Math. If she chooses to steer clear of BJU because of their past policy's, that is surely her right and I can certainly respect that. Good grief, move on already.

 

In re-reading the posts I stand corrected. You charged that Catholics view Protestantism as an anathema (not the other way around). And that you believe the Catholic Mass and communion is an "abomination". I'm not sure it improves matter much.

 

Trust me I don't "follow you around". And I think we have different standards of what constitutes "ugly" talk.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: It is NOT a secular curriculum, for sure! But if you don't mind historical Bible-themed sentences then I could see no problem.

 

I especially remember one illustration... we were to use adjectives to describe an illustration. The drawing was of a young boy, being chased by a pig. His shoe had flown off (was in the air if I remember correctly) and he was being bitten on the heel by the pig! I laughed so hard! To me, the examples and illustrations are sweet and gentle, reminiscent of a simpler time.

 

I've been chased down by a pig before! This might bring back ugly memories! :lol::lol::lol:

 

I am not interested in BJU, but the original reason is not because of the other thread. It's because I have read that R&S is a more thorough program. Also, I do not mind anything Bible based. I just don't want all of our subjects to be "preachy." I want grammar to teach grammar, not religious doctrine. If simple moral and Bible-story sentences are all that I have to deal with, that is fine by me. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me I don't "follow you around"

Bill

 

Well good...cuz that would be a bit creepy! :lol:

 

Yes, I know you do not follow me around, that would be rather boring for you. ;) But it is a bit suspect when you come post in another BJU thread, when I am pretty sure that you have probably never used BJU or Abeka (or Rod & Staff for that matter). My natural assumption is that you wanted to stir the pot again. Forgive me if that assumption was wrong. I have always respected your posts in the past, and I was a bit dumbfounded that both you and Elizabeth alluded to my anathema-ing (is that even a word? lol) someone. I did not, would not, do that.

 

By "ugly talk" I was referring to the whole topic in the other thread...yes, the past racist policies which were very ugly indeed. But, again, those policies are not at all indicative of what BJU's curriculum contains. :confused: I would hate for someone who really wants to use BJU curriculum, in spite of their past policies, but is afraid too for fear the curriculum contains racist hate talk or odd preachy Christian doctrine. It does not.

 

Anyhow, 'nuff said. :D

 

Mommy2BeautifulGirls: R&S is a good choice. We very much enjoyed the sweetness and innocence of R&S, and you are correct...it is a thorough program. I honestly do not believe it is more thorough than Abeka or BJU, but it is very thorough indeed. I don't think you can go wrong with any of these, they are all three, solid choices...and yes, in my many years of homeschooling, I have used all three of them. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I especially like about R&S besides the fact that I consider it a very thorough program, is that the Teacher books are very helpful! English Grammar is NOT my strong point, so that was a big selling point for me initially, and I wasn't disappointed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love R&S. We use their English, Spelling and Science programs. Like everyone else has stated, most of their "religious" elements in those subjects are confined to Bible verses and stories. We ran into one sentence in a spelling quiz in Level 4 I think that said something along the lines of "The Bible says women should not preach." We didn't find it offensive since we believe the same, but of course others may differ. I was just surprised to see it since the spelling word was "women". This could be changed of course since it was in the teacher's manual, not the student text. Their science texts are Young Earth in viewpoint. That's the closest thing to "doctrine" though that we've run across thus far.

Edited by Shelly in the Country
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well good...cuz that would be a bit creepy! :lol:

 

Yes, I know you do not follow me around, that would be rather boring for you. ;) But it is a bit suspect when you come post in another BJU thread, when I am pretty sure that you have probably never used BJU or Abeka (or Rod & Staff for that matter). My natural assumption is that you wanted to stir the pot again. Forgive me if that assumption was wrong. I have always respected your posts in the past, and I was a bit dumbfounded that both you and Elizabeth alluded to my anathema-ing (is that even a word? lol) someone. I did not, would not, do that.

 

Melissa, I read this thread only because it referenced the other thread. KWIM?

 

And you are correct I would never use BJU materials because I don't trust the source. "No good tree bears bad fruit". Jesus said that. And BJU has set too much bad fruit for me to consider it a "good tree".

 

I'm very surprised to see people in the Classical Education community using BJU materials, but except for the other thread (where the OP asked for input, and this spin-off) I've held my tongue. And I don't think my posts were pot-stirring (now or then). There are serious issues with BJU and their past practices, as you yourself have admitted.

 

I don't want there to be feeling of enmity between us, I really don't.

 

By "ugly talk" I was referring to the whole topic in the other thread...yes, the past racist policies which were very ugly indeed. But, again, those policies are not at all indicative of what BJU's curriculum contains. :confused: I would hate for someone who really wants to use BJU curriculum, in spite of their past policies, but is afraid too for fear the curriculum contains racist hate talk or odd preachy Christian doctrine. It does not.

 

But does it contain what some would consider anti-Catholic teachings?

 

Because other posters say that it does, and BJU has, what seems to me, a very well deserved reputation as a font of ant-Catholic bigotry. And money spent on their curriculum furthers Bob Jones University.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We ran into one sentence in a spelling quiz in Level 4 I think that said something along the lines of "The Bible says women should not preach." We didn't find it offensive since we believe the same, but of course others may differ. I was just surprised to see it since the spelling word was "women".

 

I believe the same, as well, but they certainly could have picked a myriad of other sentences for illustrating the word "women." :confused: Interesting. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melissa, I read this thread only because it referenced the other thread. KWIM?

 

And you are correct I would never use BJU materials because I don't trust the source. "No good tree bears bad fruit". Jesus said that. And BJU has set too much bad fruit for me to consider it a "good tree".

 

I'm very surprised to see people in the Classical Education community using BJU materials, but except for the other thread (where the OP asked for input, and this spin-off) I've held my tongue. And I don't think my posts were pot-stirring (now or then). There are serious issues with BJU and their past practices, as you yourself have admitted.

 

I don't want there to be feeling of enmity between us, I really don't.

 

 

 

But does it contain what some would consider anti-Catholic teachings?

 

Because other posters say that it does, and BJU has, what seems to me, a very well deserved reputation as a font of ant-Catholic bigotry. And money spent on their curriculum furthers Bob Jones University.

 

Bill

I'm not defending any one thing, but I HAVE noticed that she has mentioned how the Pope has targeted other religions/beliefs and ****ed them and the people in them, but you haven't referenced that in your answers, only that BJU has done it. Is there a reason why it's atrocious for BJU to do that, but okay for the Pope to do that? I don't think it's right either way, so I am just curious as to what your thoughts are, since you haven't answered that part of her posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------As noted in my earlier post Melissa is perpetuating a faulty understanding of the position of the Catholic church please read the links if you want to read the position of the Pope on this question. I am not interested in enmity with anyone on the board but remain committed to correcting untruths regarding what the Catholic church actually teaches. That is all.

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/God...130675/?itm=11 A wonderful book that explores and explains the various ways that the Bible and faith in general was used to bolster both the civil rights movement and as support for past and ongoing racism. We are definitely using this as part of our history curricula for next year. Entering the conversation late it seems to me that there is a reticence from many including those in my own church to deny , ignore and refute that which is ugly and undoubtedly unlike Christ . It seems preferable to acknowledge error and /or malfeasance , own it , make amends if at all possible and move forward ,deeply chagrined by failure but wiser. Many in my church do not agree with this approach and I fear for the future if we do not deal with the structure of authority that permitted terrible wrongs to occur. It is a struggle both personal and public to face institutional wrongdoing but light is good disinfectant. FWIW I am a Vatican II Catholic. The Catholic Church does not teach that our Protestant, Muslim , Hindu , Jewish , Buddhist or atheist brothers and sisters are condemned to alienation from the Almighty or ****ed. I do think it would be good to get solid information from those well versed in the subjects under discussion. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...aetate_en.html There are a plethora of other documents that make clear the Catholic position on this . Pope John Paul II addressed this question more recently in this document Redemptoris Missio http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0219/__P6.HTM I do not post this for any reason other than to correct misinformation regarding the stance of the Catholic church on this question.

__________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not defending any one thing, but I HAVE noticed that she has mentioned how the Pope has targeted other religions/beliefs and ****ed them and the people in them, but you haven't referenced that in your answers, only that BJU has done it. Is there a reason why it's atrocious for BJU to do that, but okay for the Pope to do that? I don't think it's right either way, so I am just curious as to what your thoughts are, since you haven't answered that part of her posts.

 

I'm not an apologist for the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church.

 

And I simply would not begin to consider using educational materials that inspire bigotry. If a Catholic group released material that did so, I'd avoid it. Just as I'd avoid it if it came from a publisher of any faith-allegiance, or a publisher from a non-faith or anti-faith position who I felt was bent on whipping up hate.

 

There is no double standard.

 

I understand that religious communities have differences with the theological positions of people outside their faith, or even with people with-in their "general" faith but of a different stream, and that many of these differences are irreconcilable.

 

But I don't think it's necessary to "demonize" others based on un-provable beliefs.

 

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an apologist for the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church.

 

And I simply would not begin to consider using educational materials that inspire bigotry. If a Catholic group released material that did so, I'd avoid it. Just as I'd avoid it is it came from a publisher of any faith-allegiance, or a publisher from a non-faith or anti-faith position who I felt was bent on whipping up hate.

 

There is no double standard.

 

I understand that religious communities have differences with the theological positions of people outside their faith, or even with people with-in their "general" faith but of a different stream, and that many of these differences are irreconcilable.

 

But I don't think it's necessary to "demonize" others based on un-provable beliefs.

 

Bill

Thankyou.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------As noted in my earlier post Melissa is perpetuating a faulty understanding of the position of the Catholic church please read the links if you want to read the position of the Pope on this question. I am not interested in enmity with anyone on the board but remain committed to correcting untruths regarding what the Catholic church actually teaches. That is all.

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/God...130675/?itm=11 A wonderful book that explores and explains the various ways that the Bible and faith in general was used to bolster both the civil rights movement and as support for past and ongoing racism. We are definitely using this as part of our history curricula for next year. Entering the conversation late it seems to me that there is a reticence from many including those in my own church to deny , ignore and refute that which is ugly and undoubtedly unlike Christ . It seems preferable to acknowledge error and /or malfeasance , own it , make amends if at all possible and move forward ,deeply chagrined by failure but wiser. Many in my church do not agree with this approach and I fear for the future if we do not deal with the structure of authority that permitted terrible wrongs to occur. It is a struggle both personal and public to face institutional wrongdoing but light is good disinfectant. FWIW I am a Vatican II Catholic. The Catholic Church does not teach that our Protestant, Muslim , Hindu , Jewish , Buddhist or atheist brothers and sisters are condemned to alienation from the Almighty or ****ed. I do think it would be good to get solid information from those well versed in the subjects under discussion. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...aetate_en.html There are a plethora of other documents that make clear the Catholic position on this . Pope John Paul II addressed this question more recently in this document Redemptoris Missio http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0219/__P6.HTM I do not post this for any reason other than to correct misinformation regarding the stance of the Catholic church on this question.

__________________

 

Elizabeth, I have read your links...not thoroughly as I do not have time...but I fail to see where they have denounced previous papal decrees? It causes somewhat of a pickle for the Catholic church I fear...my understanding is that they cannot denounce them. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

Can you show me in these links where the Pope, any Pope, has lifted the anathema from the Protestant and his beliefs? Has stated that we are not anathema for believing in Sola Scriptura, not anathema for our beliefs in communion, etc. I would very much love to read that. Honestly. If you can, then I will stand very humbly corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a huge difference between being against Catholic theology and being against Catholics. One is simply holding to a different view of scripture and thereby holding to different religious beliefs. The other is bigotry, which is wrong. Here is a quote from a Catholic apologist website that explains the difference better than I can. The context of this quote is a list of arguments Catholics should NOT use when debating religion with Protestants:

 

2. Avoid the term "anti-Catholic." The term is ill-defined. If it refers to a form of bigotry or prejudice then it could only be applied to individual Protestants (or other non-Catholics) on a case by case basis, and that only after they had exhibited a demonstrable pattern of bad faith. If, on the other hand, it refers to theological opposition to Catholicism, then it ought not to be used as a term of disdain. For Catholics are theologically opposed to Protestantism. Indeed, according to Dominus Iesus, Protestant "churches" are not, properly speaking, churches. The distinctives of Protestant theology are heresy, and the Council of Trent has pronounced anathema upon them. If, then, Protestants who believe Catholicism to be heretical are anti-Catholic, by the same standard Catholics who believe Protestantism to be heretical are anti-Protestant.

 

Here is a link to the actual website:

 

http://www.pugiofidei.com/unsound.htm

 

As far as BJU materials go, well, of course they are going to say that Catholic beliefs are wrong. It's a matter of theology. If Protestants didn't think Catholics were wrong there wouldn't have been a Reformation. That doesn't mean they hate Catholics.

 

ETA: I use R&S for English and have bought their World History text (7th grade). The only thing I have found that is new to me (I'm a Doctrines of Grace Baptist) is their military passivity (is that the term?). Anyway, the don't believe in joining the armed services. They are also Arminian if that matters.

Edited by Kathleen in VA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as BJU materials go, well, of course they are going to say that Catholic beliefs are wrong. It's a matter of theology. If Protestants didn't think Catholics were wrong there wouldn't have been a Reformation. That doesn't mean they hate Catholics.

 

Calling the much beloved Pope Paul on his death an ""archbishop of Satan," and an "Antichrist" who is going to hell along side Judas, is very different than having a polite (but firm) theological difference of opinion.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only posted links to respond to your assertion that the Catholic church and magistereum condemned Protestants, non Christians etc to eternal ****ation . That is patently untrue as is evident from the first link with the date 1965. You do not understand the role of Vatican II nor how the Catholic church develops in regard to the teaching role of the church. What you are asking for can be addressed in the Catechism if you really are interested in the answer I have no doubt you will seek answers to your query here Disciplinary infallibility

What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility? It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith and morals. Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplinary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend directly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to condemn these truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

 

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law; the most remarkable instance of this being the suppression of the chalice in the Communion of the laity. This has often been violently attacked as contrary to the Gospel. Concerning it the Council of Constance (1415) declared (Sess. XIII): "The claim that it is sacrilegious or illicit to observe this custom or law [Communion under one kind] must be regarded as erroneous, and those who obstinately affirm it must be cast aside as heretics." The opinion, generally admitted by theologians, that the Church is infallible in her approbation of religious orders, must be interpreted in the same sense; it means that in her regulation of a manner of life destined to provide for the practice of the evangelical counsels she cannot come into conflict with these counsels as received from Christ together with the rest of the Gospel revelation. (See ROMAN CONGREGATIONS.)

 

Sources

THOMASSIN, Vetua et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface; JEILER in Kirchenlex., s.v. Disciplin; all treatises on public ecclesiastical law, especially that by CAVAGNIS, Inst. jur. publ. eccl. (Rome, 1906), I. III, ch. ii; the treatise de Ecclesiâ in theological works, especially in HURTER, Theol. dogm. comp. (Innsbruck, 1878), I, thesis xlvi, and WILMERS, De Christi Ecclesiâ (Ratishon, 1897), 469 sq.

 

About this page

APA citation. Boudinhon, A. (1909). Ecclesiastical Discipline. In The Catholic Encyclopedia.

I mean this as graciously as possible I do not wish to continue our conversation as I believe it has distracted from the orignial topic substantially. The original topic seems to be about whether one can morally use a curriculum that is published by a company who espoused racist segregation and fostered misunderstanding between the different denominations of Christianity with false statements regarding what the denomination actually believes. I stand firmly that for my family it is unacceptable to place money in the hands of those who hold beliefs I find objectionable and promote a theology I disagree with. I would suppose that for your family you would likely do the same . That is why I homeschool and I imagine many on the board educate at home to explain, teach and explore the world with their dc in a manner they deem responsible and moral. What those last two terms encompass is for each of us to work out in our own way with our families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.But does it contain what some would consider anti-Catholic teachings?

 

Because other posters say that it does, and BJU has, what seems to me, a very well deserved reputation as a font of ant-Catholic bigotry. And money spent on their curriculum furthers Bob Jones University.

 

Bill

 

Does a Conservative Protestant Christian organization have to include pro-Catholic teachings? Pro-Muslim? Pro-Pagan? Pro-homosexuality? etc. etc. etc. :confused:

 

I would not expect the Catholic church to put out pro-Protestant teaching in a Catholic curriculum. Why would Catholics expect that of a Protestant curriculum? I would, instead, expect that when the subject is broached, the Catholic Church would teach why they believe what they believe and why they don't believe what the Protestant teaches. I see BJU doing only this in their curriculum (at least what was said to have been read in the other thread). How is that bigotry? I have not once seen a single bigoted remark about Catholicism in any of my BJU materials. Actually, to be honest, I haven't even seen Catholicism expressed or defined at all. Isn't there a difference between being a hateful bigot, and teaching people of your own faith why they do not adhere to the beliefs of another faith?

 

Also, I do not know for sure why Bob Jones Jr. said what he said about the Pope, but instead of chastising an entire curriculum, wouldn't it be better to discover why a person would say such a thing? He has very strong convictions for sure to say something like that...ever thought to discover what they are? Maybe that would shed some light on the matter. It may not make him right in saying it, but at least you could see where he is coming from. Perhaps he truly feels that the office of Pope is an unbiblical evil one and leading many people astray unto a false hope, a false gospel. As I mentioned in the other thread, there was a Reformation for a reason. :001_smile:

 

Goodness, I keep wanting to put this conversation to bed but my self-control appears to be lacking. :blink: I really don't want to continue this, as I see it as unfruitful, but I have such a hard time letting misconceptions go. I try to always see the positive in every situation and give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, so perhaps that is a failing of mine. I do know that BJU has upheld some wrong policies, and that they were hurtful to many, but I cannot help but want to forgive them. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a huge difference between being against Catholic theology and being against Catholics. One is simply holding to a different view of scripture and thereby holding to different religious beliefs. The other is bigotry, which is wrong. Here is a quote from a Catholic apologist website that explains the difference better than I can. The context of this quote is a list of arguments Catholics should NOT use when debating religion with Protestants:

 

 

 

Here is a link to the actual website:

 

http://www.pugiofidei.com/unsound.htm

 

.

 

I would just like to point out that just because someone says he is Catholic does not make him an official apologist for the faith and does not make what he says the official position of the Catholic Church. I am pretty well-versed in apologetics, and I don't recognize this site or any of the names on it as being mainstream -- meaning that these people are likely Traditionalists and not in agreement with the Pope and the Magesterium anyhow. Most of the quotes I have seen on the anathema bit are from those people also.

 

If you really want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, check the Catechism, EWTN, the actual Vatican web site, etc. Please don't use extremist positions that don't really represent the teachings of the Catholic Church as ammunition here. I do understand that this might be confusing to someone who isn't Catholic, but suffice it to say that Protestants are not the only ones who don't agree with the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling the much beloved Pope Paul on his death an ""archbishop of Satan," and an "Antichrist" who is going to hell along side Judas, is very different than having a polite (but firm) theological difference of opinion.

 

Bill

 

 

I respectfully disagree. Those statements are theological in nature. I believe those who are not believers in Christ are going to hell. That causes me grief and pain - I'm certainly do not take any joy in it - but I do believe it is true nonetheless. This does not cause me to have an uppity, "those awful Catholics" attitude. To the contrary. It causes me to grieve for their eternal condition and pray for them. It is only by God's grace that I believe differently - it certainly doesn't have anything to do with me being worthy and wonderful. That is why I want to tell them, and anyone else who is without Christ, about my Savior. As for the Archbishop of Satan. Well, I wouldn't have been bold enough to use that phraseology, but when you believe that someone is leading other people to eternal ****ation what else would you call that? It seems even more appropriate when you know that God holds leaders to greater accountability that the average person. I mean, if you truly believed that the Pope is leading folks down the road to hell wouldn't you also be right in thinking that he is a servant of the devil? I know it doesn't sound nice and pretty and all, but logically it does make sense. Also, as a leader in his own right, Bob Jones may have felt an even stronger responsibility to speak out against the Pope.

 

Again, if you truly felt that someone (especially someone as highly revered and respected as the Pope) was teaching a false religion that was causing many, many people to die in their sins and not in Christ, thereby condemning them to eternal ****ation, you'd probably have some pretty strong language about it as well.

 

It really does come down to theology. The Pope was most likely singled out because of his leadership position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to point out that just because someone says he is Catholic does not make him an official apologist for the faith and does not make what he says the official position of the Catholic Church. I am pretty well-versed in apologetics, and I don't recognize this site or any of the names on it as being mainstream -- meaning that these people are likely Traditionalists and not in agreement with the Pope and the Magesterium anyhow. Most of the quotes I have seen on the anathema bit are from those people also.

 

If you really want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, check the Catechism, EWTN, the actual Vatican web site, etc. Please don't use extremist positions that don't really represent the teachings of the Catholic Church as ammunition here. I do understand that this might be confusing to someone who isn't Catholic, but suffice it to say that Protestants are not the only ones who don't agree with the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

Well, you are right - I wouldn't know an extremist Catholic from a plug nickel, but that does not negate the point he made. Also, I wasn't intending to use "ammunition" as you call it. My tone was friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodness, I keep wanting to put this conversation to bed but my self-control appears to be lacking. :blink: I really don't want to continue this, as I see it as unfruitful, but I have such a hard time letting misconceptions go. I try to always see the positive in every situation and give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, so perhaps that is a failing of mine. I do know that BJU has upheld some wrong policies, and that they were hurtful to many, but I cannot help but want to forgive them. :confused:

 

Perhaps you and I both lack self-control :). But I assume when you are referencing "wrong policies" you are referring back to the race issue and not the Catholic issue, since they are separate? I am having a problem with the word "forgive" here, because as a Christian, I forgave them before they apologized. Forgiving someone and letting them teach your children are two entirely separate issues as well. Here's another thing, if I am to believe from their apology in November of 2008 that they have repented fully now and want to turn the bus around, so to speak, that doesn't give me any sort of reassurance regarding the content of their curriculum. (And yes I know some have chimed in here to say there is no racism in their curriculum, but I'm sorry I look at the worldview of a publisher. Sometimes little things come through that may not be obvious unless you are sensitive to them.) We are talking about 2008 for goodness sake! I'm still using the curriculum I bought last year in March of 2008. They apologized in November of 2008! 5 months ago. This is recent, recent, recent history, not the distant past. I don't like being told I don't forgive somebody when all I am choosing to do is NOT buy their curriculum which was written and published BEFORE they repented.

 

The Catholic issue being discussed here is separate since to my knowledge, BJU has not changed any beliefs with respect to Catholicism.

Edited by Shelly in the Country
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A parable:

 

A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.

 

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

 

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.

 

For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit.

 

For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.

 

The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.

 

Luke 6:40-45

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you and I both lack self-control :). But I assume when you are referencing "wrong policies" you are referring back to the race issue and not the Catholic issue, since they are separate? I am having a problem with the word "forgive" here, because as a Christian, I forgave them before they apologized. Forgiving someone and letting them teach your children are two entirely separate issues as well. Here's another thing, if I am to believe from their apology in November of 2008 that they have repented fully now and want to turn the bus around, so to speak, that doesn't give me any sort of reassurance regarding the content of their curriculum. (And yes I know some have chimed in here to say there is no racism in their curriculum, but I'm sorry I look at the worldview of a publisher. Sometimes little things come through that may not be obvious unless you are sensitive to them.) We are talking about 2008 for goodness sake! I'm still using the curriculum I bought last year in March of 2008. They apologized in November of 2008! 5 months ago. This is recent, recent, recent history, not the distant past. I don't like being told I don't forgive somebody when all I am choosing to do is NOT buy their curriculum which was written and published BEFORE they repented.

 

The Catholic issue being discussed here is separate since to my knowledge, BJU has not changed any beliefs with respect to Catholicism.

 

I can surely understand your point of view! And no one is saying you personally are unforgiving...I was pointing out that perhaps that is my own naive flaw in this particular matter.

 

Actually, had I known about BJU's stand before having used their curriculum, I too would have been leery of it, and would probably have looked elsewhere...just in case. But I did not know of it. I had been happily using it for a couple of years before I even knew anything about the University itself. And in using it, I have yet to find anything that even remotely points to the University's dating policy or any type of racial bigotry whatsoever. :confused: I guess I feel the need to defend their curriculum because I see it as being misrepresented. I hope that makes sense. :confused:

 

I also have not seen anything in the worldview presented in our materials to cause alarm. I have no clue how BJU could have misinterpreted scripture to come up with their original stand on dating...that truly boggles my mind...but their Christian worldview as presented in their curriculum seems perfectly in line with scripture and conservative Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, had I known about BJU's stand before having used their curriculum, I too would have been leery of it, and would probably have looked elsewhere...just in case. But I did not know of it. I had been happily using it for a couple of years before I even knew anything about the University itself. And in using it, I have yet to find anything that even remotely points to the University's dating policy or any type of racial bigotry whatsoever. :confused: I guess I feel the need to defend their curriculum because I see it as being misrepresented. I hope that makes sense. :confused:

 

I also have not seen anything in the worldview presented in our materials to cause alarm. I have no clue how BJU could have misinterpreted scripture to come up with their original stand on dating...that truly boggles my mind...but their Christian worldview as presented in their curriculum seems perfectly in line with scripture and conservative Christianity.

 

Fair enough. :) Honestly I wouldn't have known about BJU's policies either except that my father once mentioned it offhand when I was a kid and because of the old Steve Taylor song, since I am a connoiseur of 80's Christian Rock. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you and I both lack self-control :). But I assume when you are referencing "wrong policies" you are referring back to the race issue and not the Catholic issue, since they are separate? I am having a problem with the word "forgive" here, because as a Christian, I forgave them before they apologized. Forgiving someone and letting them teach your children are two entirely separate issues as well. Here's another thing, if I am to believe from their apology in November of 2008 that they have repented fully now and want to turn the bus around, so to speak, that doesn't give me any sort of reassurance regarding the content of their curriculum. (And yes I know some have chimed in here to say there is no racism in their curriculum, but I'm sorry I look at the worldview of a publisher. Sometimes little things come through that may not be obvious unless you are sensitive to them.) We are talking about 2008 for goodness sake! I'm still using the curriculum I bought last year in March of 2008. They apologized in November of 2008! 5 months ago. This is recent, recent, recent history, not the distant past. I don't like being told I don't forgive somebody when all I am choosing to do is NOT buy their curriculum which was written and published BEFORE they repented.

 

The Catholic issue being discussed here is separate since to my knowledge, BJU has not changed any beliefs with respect to Catholicism.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:001_smile:

 

Goodness, I keep wanting to put this conversation to bed but my self-control appears to be lacking. :blink: I really don't want to continue this, as I see it as unfruitful, but I have such a hard time letting misconceptions go. I try to always see the positive in every situation and give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, so perhaps that is a failing of mine. I do know that BJU has upheld some wrong policies, and that they were hurtful to many, but I cannot help but want to forgive them. :confused:

 

Is it fair to say when we are really passionate about a curriculum, we have a tenancy to take the negative comments others are saying about it personally? :grouphug:

 

We all have the right to choose which curriculum we think is best for our children without being made to feel bad about our choice in curriculum. Please hear me when I state that it is not a personal attack on the person who chooses to use a curriculum that others will not use. I think that most people on this forum are only voicing their concerns.;)

Edited by LUV2EDU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it fair to say when we are really passionate about a curriculum, we have a tenancy to take the negative comments others are saying about it personally? :grouphug:

 

We all have the right to choose which curriculum we think is best for our children without being made to feel bad about our choice in curriculum. Please hear me when I state that it is not a personal attack on the person who chooses to use a curriculum that others will not use. I think that most people on this forum are only voicing their concerns.;)

 

Shelly has articulated my views about BJU perfectly, so I won't repeat. As far as your post... boy howdy do people defend their curriculums!:001_smile: I've seen some hot and heavies on TOG and Winterpromise which I stayed out of! :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A parable:

 

A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.

 

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

 

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.

 

For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit.

 

For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.

 

The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.

 

Luke 6:40-45

 

*gasp*!

 

This coming from Bill who called for Christians to be more condemning??

 

now take a look at that passage in context:

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.

-------------

35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

 

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

 

39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

 

 

pay attention, class. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*gasp*!

 

This coming from Bill who called for Christians to be more condemning??

 

now take a look at that passage in context:

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.

-------------

35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

 

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

 

39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

 

 

pay attention, class. ;)

 

This *gasp* coming from the woman who never fails to remind us that Jesus knew when to after the money-changers in the Temple? :D

 

See, I'm paying attention :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only posted links to respond to your assertion that the Catholic church and magistereum condemned Protestants, non Christians etc to eternal ****ation . That is patently untrue as is evident from the first link with the date 1965. You do not understand the role of Vatican II nor how the Catholic church develops in regard to the teaching role of the church. What you are asking for can be addressed in the Catechism if you really are interested in the answer I have no doubt you will seek answers to your query here Disciplinary infallibility. ~snip

 

Elizabeth, I appreciate your response, but I still see no evidence in what you have written, or the links you have supplied, that the Catholic Church has recanted their anathemas. :confused: How does one un-curse the cursed anyway?

 

Here is a quote from a former Catholic nun on the ritual of anathema:

 

According to the 1913 edition of the “Catholic Encyclopedia,†when the Catholic Church anathematizes someone, the Pope ritually puts curses on them. There is a solemn written ritual for doing this. The “Catholic Encyclopedia†article describes the ritual in detail, including extensive quotations from it. (You can read this article online.) [Note 4]

 

In pronouncing the anathema, the Pope wears special vestments. He is assisted by twelve priests holding lighted candles. Calling on the name of God, the Pope pronounces a solemn ecclesiastical curse. He ends by pronouncing sentence and declaring that the anathematized person is condemned to hell with Satan. The priests reply, “Fiat!†(Let it be done!) and throw down their candles.

 

As we will see, the Catholic Church considers heresy (disagreement with Catholic doctrine) to be a crime. The Council of Trent, and other Church councils, declare that any person who disagrees with even one of their doctrinal statements is thereby anathematized.

 

When the Pope pronounces an anathema, he is said to be passing sentence on a criminal. The “Catholic Encyclopedia†says that the anathema ritual is deliberately calculated to terrify the “criminal†and cause him to repent (in other words, to unconditionally submit to the Catholic Church).

 

For those whose crime is heresy, repentance means renouncing everything that they have said or done which conflicts with Catholic doctrine. In other words, they have to renounce their own conscience and discernment, and the conclusions which they reached in their best efforts to understand Biblical principles. And they have to submit their minds and wills unconditionally to every official doctrinal declaration of the Catholic Church. As we will see, Canon Law says that this unquestioning submission of the mind and will is required.

 

Oh, and I found this rather enlightening as well:

 

OFFICIAL MODERN ENDORSEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

 

The declarations and anathemas of the Council of Trent have never been revoked. On the contrary, the decrees of the Council of Trent are confirmed by both the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the official “Catechism of the Catholic Church†(1992).

 

The documents of the Second Vatican Council cite the Council of Trent as an authority for doctrinal statements, both in the text and in the notes. The “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church†states that the Second Vatican Council “proposes again the decrees of†three previous councils, one of which is the Council of Trent. [Note 5] The “Decree on the Training of Priests†says that the Second Vatican Council continued the work of the Council of Trent. [Note 6]

 

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church†was written for the purpose of summarizing the essential and basic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1992 and the English translation was released in 1994. It has numbered paragraphs, and has been published in many languages.

 

The Council of Trent is mentioned in seventy-five paragraphs of the “Catechismâ€. It is always mentioned in a positive, authoritative way. Some paragraphs mention it two or three times. Paragraph 9 of the “Catechism†says that the Council of Trent was the origin of Catholic Catechisms. The other 74 paragraphs in the “Catechism†which mention it cite the Council of Trent as an authoritative source which supports their doctrinal statements. [Note 7]

 

This is not to cause argument, and I don't expect you to respond, but I have yet to see that the Church has recanted their position. Oh, yes, they've gotten ecumenical...but unless The Council of Trent is not church dogma and it's canons have indeed been recanted in writing, I, and all protestants like me, are still cursed to Hell. :confused: I would think that if the Church recanted, there would be adequate proof of that. How hard is it to write, "We were wrong in anathematizing the protestant and his beliefs?" :D

 

Here is the link for the above quotes: http://apprising.org/2008/09/ecumenism-and-the-council-of-trent/ I am not familiar with this particular site, but it was the easiest to understand for the purpose of simplicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all have the right to choose which curriculum we think is best for our children without being made to feel bad about our choice in curriculum

 

:iagree: I hope that I did not make anyone feel bad in not choosing BJU! Good grief, that was never my intention. :blink: I was just fighting for the thread's underdog is all. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This *gasp* coming from the woman who never fails to remind us that Jesus knew when to after the money-changers in the Temple? :D

 

See, I'm paying attention :tongue_smilie:

 

ayup :)

 

there's a wierd little line to walk between calling actions to condemnation and yet loving those who are performing such actions. establishing and building those relationships isn't always as black and white as we'd like it to be, even w/ the BJU issue. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...