In light of BJU versus A Beka question...

[Melissa in CA]

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.

 

Can. 20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

 

Can you show me in the new Code of Canon Law where this has been done? I have read and read and read! I see lots of jargon and the like, but I don't see where it expressly says that we are no longer anathematized. :confused:

 

I am honestly not trying to be difficult, I have just spent an hour reading your 1983 Code of Canon law and I don't see anything saying otherwise. It does state this though:

 

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

 

So, I am concluding from that, that the old laws regarding those outside of the Catholic Church still stand.

 

ETA: I am truly trying to understand this. Truly. I am not meaning to be snarky in any way, but linking me websites and telling me codes have changed such in such, is not proof to me that these things have actually been truly changed, KWIM? There should be something expressly written, not pages and pages of law that means nothing to me (does not apply to me). If the Catholic Church has actually lifted it curse from our practices (which I think is highly unlikely, due to our difference in doctrine regarding them) then I would think there would be actual proof of that and respected protestant theologians would be aware of it.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Melissa in CA

[Donna A.]

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

 

Ah, but Spy Car, while Abeka and BJU may have been mentioned in the subject line (which was an error on the op's part, IMO), if you actually read the question in the op, it was obvious that the question was not about Abeka or BJU. However, since you chose to get involved in the thread anyway, then I would have to agree with Melissa that perhaps you ARE just trying to stir the pot.