Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Catholic Problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    The woman being ordained was an Episcopalian student and I am not a bishop (or priest or deacon). My role in the Anglican/Episcopalian ordination ceremony was comparable to that of the rector of a theology seminary in the Catholic ordination ceremony, namely I officially attested to her theological preparation. Though a lesser offense, surely this too is 'frowned upon' by canon law, but I did not bother to look up the canons at the time. Some things are more important, in my opinion, in this case grass-roots efforts toward Christian unity, encouragement of women's ordination among Catholics, but my primary motivation was that I was deeply honored to be asked to play this role for a friend.
    Understood. Though a lesser offense as you've put it. As you've stated in this case grass-roots effort toward Christian unity and encouragement of women's ordination among Catholics, but your primary motivation was more deeply rooted in the honor (again, rightly so) and also, to be asked to play a role for a friend.

    Robrecht, there are many issues that have separate family and friends from one another in a religious sense and this might be one of them. There was a listing of the others mentioned that were more intense issues, as well. Eucharist doctrine between each congregation is on the top 10 list. However, what makes Christians unified is their love for Christ. Each denomination has set up the guidelines within the confides of his or her's church teachings. That way we all stay within faith and morals of Christ's teachings - all laws/teachings derive of the scripture. Basically, the apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth, “Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13). But the emphasizes is on "watch". To "stay awake” and not to “be sleepless.” They are usually meant in the metaphorical and spiritual sense—to be vigilant and on guard - "Watch".

    24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

    The idea in the passage is on "While everyone was sleeping".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Marta View Post
      Understood. Though a lesser offense as you've put it. As you've stated in this case grass-roots effort toward Christian unity and encouragement of women's ordination among Catholics, but your primary motivation was more deeply rooted in the honor (again, rightly so) and also, to be asked to play a role for a friend.

      Robrecht, there are many issues that have separate family and friends from one another in a religious sense and this might be one of them. There was a listing of the others mentioned that were more intense issues, as well. Eucharist doctrine between each congregation is on the top 10 list. However, what makes Christians unified is their love for Christ. Each denomination has set up the guidelines within the confides of his or her's church teachings. That way we all stay within faith and morals of Christ's teachings - all laws/teachings derive of the scripture. Basically, the apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth, “Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13). But the emphasizes is on "watch". To "stay awake” and not to “be sleepless.” They are usually meant in the metaphorical and spiritual sense—to be vigilant and on guard - "Watch".

      24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

      The idea in the passage is on "While everyone was sleeping".
      Marta, what exactly is your point here?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        Marta, what exactly is your point here?
        Each denomination has set up there own guidelines within the confides of his or her own church's teaching. What might be exercised in one community and accepted may not be the same in another. The difference of woman's ordination within the Anglican community and that of the Roman Catholic which has a strict canon code.

        However, what I am also etching toward is that there are other differences on the board and how they are also viewed. That being the Eucharist doctrine between the churches. On woman's ordination, will it bring about the unity that both church or other congregations together - maybe in dialogue? Will we start to look at other laws within the church and start to view them as we do ordinations in the same respect. For example, a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic wedding ceremony. Catholics must marry in accord with canonical form. Which means that they are required to have a Catholic wedding ceremony. And, another example, divorce and remarriage in a civil ceremony.

        I’m saying this, what could be an acceptable position into some may not be in others and could be listed a serious offense – “watch”. It can be the simplest offense that can have consequences – be on your guard. Unity within denominations are not singled with one issue but with a few others.

        No offense - Robrecht! Again, I do understanding celebrating an ordination can be a great honor but can we look at this issue as we do marriage out side of the church in the same breath and say "hey!" congratulations but understand its not favored.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          If a pope can profess heretical dogmas privately, why could he not profess them publicly?
          There is a distinction between "ut doctor privatus" and "as supreme judge of the Church".
          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
            There is a distinction between "ut doctor privatus" and "as supreme judge of the Church".
            When "ut doctor privatus" IS "supreme judge of the Church", not so much. And I'll note, again, that it's the very concept of "supreme judge of the church" with which I most disagree.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              When "ut doctor privatus" IS "supreme judge of the Church", not so much.
              Not so.

              Main rule : if a bishop just says "let's not bother", he is speaking "ut doctor privatus".
              If a bishop says : this and that and sundry is condemned, he is speaking as supreme judge of his see, and in the case of the Pope of the Church universal.

              So, if your bishop (not meaning I consider him as legitimately possessing a see ... but ...) tells you that "Church Fathers are not infallible individually" WHEN someone quotes a very typical Patristic position (Young and Still Earth, not past 8000 years, not moving in space), since he is saying "you don't need to bother", he might be speaking as of his private opinion in theoloogy rather than exercising his episcopal jurisdiction (if any).
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                Not so.

                Main rule : if a bishop just says "let's not bother", he is speaking "ut doctor privatus".
                If a bishop says : this and that and sundry is condemned, he is speaking as supreme judge of his see, and in the case of the Pope of the Church universal.

                So, if your bishop (not meaning I consider him as legitimately possessing a see ... but ...) tells you that "Church Fathers are not infallible individually" WHEN someone quotes a very typical Patristic position (Young and Still Earth, not past 8000 years, not moving in space), since he is saying "you don't need to bother", he might be speaking as of his private opinion in theoloogy rather than exercising his episcopal jurisdiction (if any).
                Your "main rule" is nonsense. It would help if you didn't base it on a far-fetched post hoc interpretation of the writings of Pope Honorius.

                And bishops don't unilaterally condemn something either; that's what councils are for.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  And bishops don't unilaterally condemn something either; that's what councils are for.
                  Bishops do issue condemnations, like bishop Alexander (while Athanasius was as yet a deacon or presbyter) condemned not just presbyter Arius, but also his theses, before the convocation of Nicea I.

                  Both bishops and local councils issue condemnations which are not necessarily confirmed by ecumenical ones, but as long as not invalidated by a such, or by a Pope, remain binding on area and may be authoritative outside it.

                  Examples, bishop Tempier condemned on laetare Sunday of early 1277 / "late 1276" as they would have said, a number of authors and at least one book whose author was free to write other ones (Andrew the Chaplain was not necessarily a bad theologian because his love lore was bad for morals), and also 219 theses.

                  48 years later Stephen III of Paris revoked, not the condemnations of Stephen II, but any irregularity or condemnation which the theses of St Thomas possibly could have incurred due to it.

                  Or the Councils of Toledo, of which the FIRST (finished in 400 AD) had filioque in an authoritative creed (not the Nicene one!) after which certain condemnations were added.

                  It is possible that in Spain the "uncreated energies" of Palamas would be falling under those condemnations of the bishops assembled in Toledo.

                  So, yes, ecumenical councils are NOT the only occasions when bishops decide with authority binding on their own subjects, what these are not allowed to believe.

                  Sorry. Hard to have to break it to a ecclesiological historical ... shall we say fluff bunny? ... such as Eastern Orthodox often are.
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                    Bishops do issue condemnations, like bishop Alexander (while Athanasius was as yet a deacon or presbyter) condemned not just presbyter Arius, but also his theses, before the convocation of Nicea I.
                    That was in a local council. Derp.
                    Both bishops and local councils issue condemnations which are not necessarily confirmed by ecumenical ones, but as long as not invalidated by a such, or by a Pope, remain binding on area and may be authoritative outside it.

                    Examples, bishop Tempier condemned on laetare Sunday of early 1277 / "late 1276" as they would have said, a number of authors and at least one book whose author was free to write other ones (Andrew the Chaplain was not necessarily a bad theologian because his love lore was bad for morals), and also 219 theses.

                    48 years later Stephen III of Paris revoked, not the condemnations of Stephen II, but any irregularity or condemnation which the theses of St Thomas possibly could have incurred due to it.

                    Or the Councils of Toledo, of which the FIRST (finished in 400 AD) had filioque in an authoritative creed (not the Nicene one!) after which certain condemnations were added.

                    It is possible that in Spain the "uncreated energies" of Palamas would be falling under those condemnations of the bishops assembled in Toledo.

                    So, yes, ecumenical councils are NOT the only occasions when bishops decide with authority binding on their own subjects, what these are not allowed to believe.
                    I see you're hedging your bets here a bit. I didn't say that decisions were limited to ecumenical councils. Late actions by schismatic bishops are irrelevant.
                    Sorry. Hard to have to break it to a ecclesiological historical ... shall we say fluff bunny? ... such as Eastern Orthodox often are.
                    Ell Oh Ell.

                    Have fun bouncing around in your own little world; you're far too sloppy in your arguments to be taken seriously.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      I see you're hedging your bets here a bit. I didn't say that decisions were limited to ecumenical councils. Late actions by schismatic bishops are irrelevant.
                      If you admit that Toledo I (finished 400 AD) was a legitimate local council, you must admit filioque is legitimate theology unless condemned by an ecumenical council, and if so, where is your ground for calling Stephen II Tempier or Stephen III "schismatics"?
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment

                      widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                      Working...
                      X