tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745409605496062834.post2551916523521085199..comments2008-03-27T16:08:51.574-04:00Patrick Archboldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13230114519933936165noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745409605496062834.post-18014281299787193442008-03-27T16:08:51.574-04:002008-03-27T16:08:51.574-04:00One obvious(at least to me)possible answer to McBrien's question about why no Pope Joseph could be the same reason he cites for no Pope Peter - respect for the prominence of Saint Joseph in the church and in his role as the adoptive father of the Savior. But I guess Dick never considered that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745409605496062834.post-77273172712783727672008-03-27T14:20:26.961-04:002008-03-27T14:20:26.961-04:00yeps, he did, and we're stuck with his articles until Mahony gets out of office. Pray for him, this archdiocese. I turn on my heresy filters all the time here. especialy when I hear about McBrien. That book Catholicism has tons of errors (Vicar of Peter comes to mind immediately)Joe of St. Thérèsehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06506671882770822003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745409605496062834.post-39930377868140254132008-03-27T07:23:30.511-04:002008-03-27T07:23:30.511-04:00Dear Patrick,<BR/><BR/>Didn't McBrien edit that Catholic encyclopedia by HarperCollins? If so, then is this not like the foot in the trap?bro. AJKhttp://broajk.stblogs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745409605496062834.post-12374047805439646702008-03-26T16:22:16.705-04:002008-03-26T16:22:16.705-04:00Audio,<BR/>That is my point. They question everything via proxy so that you cannot lay a glove on 'em.Patrick Archboldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13230114519933936165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745409605496062834.post-30937168882263352202008-03-26T16:00:15.406-04:002008-03-26T16:00:15.406-04:00McBrien and the folks at Commonweal have learned that you NEVER actually say outright dissent. Rather, you quote someone else saying it and then (if you feel like) prop up a straw-man defense. <BR/><BR/>You might want to take a look at <A HREF="http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/Courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm" REL="nofollow">The 48 Laws of Power</A>, which reads like their playbook.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>RyanCatholic Audiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18368392303270943683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6745409605496062834.post-85476824924807681362008-03-26T12:10:21.908-04:002008-03-26T12:10:21.908-04:00Yup, trying that one loos thread of the sweater to pull.<BR/><BR/>If the can create doubt on one thing, then they can creat doubt about ANYTHING on their agenda, and thereby ease their "conscience" (which is another one of their favorite shields) about flouting church teaching, and church authority abut that teaching.<BR/><BR/>This os the Achilles heel of bible based Protestantisim. By taking the high ground, theoretically, and using the Bible as the square and compass of all things, they leave themselves wide open to those, using the hermunetics of suspicion to tear at the veracity of the bible; and thereby tear down their house of cards.<BR/><BR/>Just watch the Discovery Channel/History Chanel/National Geographics Channel around Christmas and Easter time. You'll see the carnival of de-bunkers come out of the woodwork.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com