Author Topic: Can I go? (Read 3957 times)

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #15 on:** February 20, 2014, 04:49:05 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: gooch
Quote from: Thorn
Copticruiser, sorry for gooch's answer. You don't have to go to confession as there's nothing to confess.

Hence, the Holy Office forbade Catholics to go to the funeral of non-Catholics, except from a causa civilis,28 i.e. from a civil cause. By this, it appears we are to understand that only those who hold a civil office or a position of prominence within a civic community could go to the funeral of a non-Catholic.

As for Catholics going to the marriages of Catholics being married outside of the Church, the Holy Office says this is forbidden by virtue of law (regula). However, it may be tolerated for a causa civilis,40 and provided that, scandal being removed, there is no perversion of the Faith or contempt for ecclesiastical authority.41 This meant that unless one had a civil cause, one was forbidden to go to the wedding

Causa civilis is not limited only to what he thinks here. Which is why (hopefully) he uses the terms "it appears we are to understand..." [it this way].

You should stop trying to proof-text the Church's law, now.

not proof texting anything, I want to make sure I'm not offending my Lord, i don't know how you can be so sure you're not..if the author of the article is right when he says "This meant that unless one had a civil cause, one was forbidden to go to the wedding"
then a lot of people are in trouble

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #16 on:** February 20, 2014, 06:10:44 PM »

gooch,

Authorities trained and deputed by the Church are reliable guides on moral questions. Latin Mass Magazine can boast neither. You are insisting on personal scruples and are using any "evidence" that supports your scruples and ignoring Church authorities.

All of your rebuttals can be summarized into "what if?" You have no reason to insist on this issue. You should seek spiritual counsel if you're not trolling.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #17 on:** February 20, 2014, 07:17:20 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

gooch,

Authorities trained and deputed by the Church are reliable guides on moral questions. Latin Mass Magazine can boast neither. You are insisting on personal scruples and are using any "evidence" that supports your scruples and ignoring Church authorities.

All of your rebuttals can be summarized into "what if?" You have no reason to insist on this issue. You should seek spiritual counsel if you're not trolling.

how am I trolling? you make no sense and are being dishonest if you think it's so clear cut , that there's nothing to debate, you made up your mind so that's good for you just allow others to express their beliefs or questions without shooting the troll word half haphazardly, our souls are at stake

Pope Pius XI,
Mortalium Animos
(# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “...
this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics
...
Pope Pius VI,
Charitas
(# 31-32), April 13, 1791, speaking of priests who went along with
the notoriously heretical civil constitution of
the clergy in France: “Above all, avoid and
condemn the sacrilegious intruders...
do not hold communion with them especially in
divine worship

Speaking of priests who belong to the “Old Catholic” sect, which publicly rejects Vatican I and its
definition on Papal Infallibility, Pope Pius IX declared:
Pope Pius IX,
Graves ac diuturnae
(# 4), March 23, 1875: “
They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings,
and their chairs of pestilence
which they have with impunity established
to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with
them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any
jurisdiction

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2014, 07:26:08 PM »

Distinctions are required. The distinctions are not difficult to understand. They may be difficult to apply in a given subjective case, which is what traditional priests and moral theologians are for.

You are failing or refusing to acknowledge these distinctions which make attendance allowed or denied. Considering that no one else seems to be having a problem with them, and that no one else is arguing with approved teachers about it, I'm having a difficult time viewing your position as being in good will. You are simply failing to regard the distinctions made by the theologians and canonists who have been quoted for you.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2014, 07:47:53 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Distinctions are required. The distinctions are not difficult to understand. They may be difficult to apply in a given subjective case, which is what traditional priests and moral theologians are for.

You are failing or refusing to acknowledge these distinctions which make attendance allowed or denied. Considering that no one else seems to be having a problem with them, and that no one else is arguing with approved teachers about it, I'm having a difficult time viewing your position as being in good will. You are simply failing to regard the distinctions made by the theologians and canonists who have been quoted for you.

I'm having a difficult time viewing your position as being in good will also.
I have a pope stating
this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in
the assemblies of non-Catholics......
if there are no others who at least unsure about this issue so be it

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2014, 07:52:52 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Distinctions are required. The distinctions are not difficult to understand. They may be difficult to apply in a given subjective case, which is what traditional priests and moral theologians are for.

You are failing or refusing to acknowledge these distinctions which make attendance allowed or denied. Considering that no one else seems to be having a problem with them, and that no one else is arguing with approved teachers about it, I'm having a difficult time viewing your position as being in good will. You are simply failing to regard the distinctions made by the theologians and canonists who have been quoted for you.

I'm having a difficult time viewing your position as being in good will also.
I have a pope stating
this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in
the assemblies of non-Catholics......
if there are no others who at least unsure about this issue so be it

Catholics do not "take part" when they passively attend.

That is the distinction you are missing. Passive attendance precludes active participation, which is categorically forbidden and gravely sinful.

I asked you a question on the other thread to illustrate this point. Does an emergency worker sin if he is called to a scene in a non-Catholic church while a service is being performed? The answer is obviously no. Which should dispel your notions that mere material presence should be equated to active participation. But we've already been over this, gooch.

Thorn · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2014, 08:08:53 PM »

gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects TO TAKE PART in the assemblies of non-Catholics." You are not allowed to pray or sing along with them. You merely sit silently. That's not 'taking part in'.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2014, 08:49:04 PM »

Quote from: Thorn

gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects TO TAKE PART in the assemblies of non-Catholics." You are not allowed to pray or sing along with them. You merely sit silently. That's not 'taking part in'.

agreed, but I don't believe the Pope stipulated anything to the effect that it's ok to sit silently.
how about this quote

Speaking of priests who belong to the “Old Catholic” sect, which publicly rejects Vatican I and its
definition on Papal Infallibility, Pope Pius IX,
Graves ac diuturnae
(# 4), March 23, 1875: “
They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings,
and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established
to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with
them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any
jurisdiction.”

Thorn · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2014, 09:47:15 PM »

Fine, gooch, then I do believe that if you firmly believe that it is sinful to go to a prot wedding or funeral & just sit there, then you shouldn't go. For YOU, it would be a sin to go as YOU are convinced it is a sin to go, yet you go anyway. For the rest of us - I'm going to let God judge us.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2014, 10:58:24 PM »

Quote from: Thorn

Fine, gooch, then I do believe that if you firmly believe that it is sinful to go to a prot wedding or funeral & just sit there, then you shouldn't go. For YOU, it would be a sin to go as YOU are convinced it is a sin to go, yet you go anyway. For the rest of us - I'm going to let God judge us.

yet I go anyway? I've been and I simply want to be sure going forward either way , do you have a problem with that? God will judge us all. but your opinion is duly noted . that's 2 that are a 100% sure that state it's ok to go to a Jєωιѕн wedding.

Thorn · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2014, 11:09:21 PM »

I meant that if you went anyway being firmly convinced that it's a sin, then it's a sin to go.
I gave you my honest opinion. From here you need to talk it over with a priest. What do I know?
No, I don't have a problem with your decision. We all are judged individually.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #26 on:** February 20, 2014, 11:16:20 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Thorn
gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects TO TAKE PART in the assemblies of non-Catholics." You are not allowed to pray or sing along with them. You merely sit silently. That's not 'taking part in'.

agreed, but I don't believe the Pope stipulated anything to the effect that it's ok to sit silently.
how about this quote

Speaking of priests who belong to the “Old Catholic” sect, which publicly rejects Vatican I and its
definition on Papal Infallibility, Pope Pius IX,
Graves ac diuturnae
(# 4), March 23, 1875: “
They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings,
and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established
to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with
them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any
jurisdiction.”

That's the point. He isn't talking about passive attendance. If the pope said you can't put your left foot first, does that mean you're not supposed to put your right foot first either? You're not making any sense.

Again:

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: gooch
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Distinctions are required. The distinctions are not difficult to understand. They may be difficult to apply in a given subjective case, which is what traditional priests and moral theologians are for.

You are failing or refusing to acknowledge these distinctions which make attendance allowed or denied. Considering that no one else seems to be having a problem with them, and that no one else is arguing with approved teachers about it, I'm having a difficult time viewing your position as being in good will. You are simply failing to regard the distinctions made by the theologians and canonists who have been quoted for you.

I'm having a difficult time viewing your position as being in good will also.
I have a pope stating
this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in
the assemblies of non-Catholics......
if there are no others who at least unsure about this issue so be it

Catholics do not "take part" when they passively attend.

That is the distinction you are missing. Passive attendance precludes active participation, which is categorically forbidden and gravely sinful.

I asked you a question on the other thread to illustrate this point. Does an emergency worker sin if he is called to a scene in a non-Catholic church while a service is being performed? The answer is obviously no. Which should dispel your notions that mere material presence should be equated to active participation. But we've already been over this, gooch.

ihsv · « **Reply #27 on:** February 21, 2014, 05:00:54 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: ihsv
Just by way of suggestion, one way to deal with this type of a situation is to only go to the reception and skip the ceremonies altogether. A protestant relative of mine was recently married and, while we weren't present at the ceremony, they were very pleased to see us at the reception. No one's feelings were hurt.

are you sure you're not hurtingGod's feelings by going to a Jєωιѕн marriage for instance?

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Carefully.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #28 on:** February 21, 2014, 05:02:30 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: gooch
Quote from: Thorn
gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never
Again:

Quote from: Mit
[/quote

Catholics do not "take part" when they passively attend.

That is the distinction you are missing. Passive attendance precludes active participation, which is categorically forbidden and gravely sinful.

I asked you a question on the other thread to illustrate this point. Does an emergency worker sin if he is called to a scene in a non-Catholic church while a service is being performed? The answer is obviously no. Which should dispel your notions that mere material presence should be equated to active participation. But we've already been over this, gooch.

I would say there's a difference between an emergency worker who would go there to do his jobthan someone who attends a Jєωιѕн wedding, while not actively participating he nonetheless is approving of the marriage is he not, he then goes to party afterwards with these Jєωs (Christ killers) ...I would be convinced if the pope were to specifically say, it's ok to attend these ceremonies but just sit in the back or something to that effect

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #29 on:** February 21, 2014, 08:22:12 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: gooch
Quote from: Thorn
gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never
Again:

Quote from: Mit
[/quote

Catholics do not "take part" when they passively attend.

That is the distinction you are missing. Passive attendance precludes active participation, which is categorically forbidden and gravely sinful.

I asked you a question on the other thread to illustrate this point. Does an emergency worker sin if he is called to a scene in a non-Catholic church while a service is being performed? The answer is obviously no. Which should dispel your notions that mere material presence should be equated to active participation. But we've already been over this, gooch.

I would say there's a difference between an emergency worker who would go there to do his jobthan someone who attends a Jєωιѕн wedding, while not actively participating he nonetheless is approving of the marriage is he not, he then goes to party afterwards with these Jєωs (Christ killers) ...I would be convinced if the pope were to specifically say, it's ok to attend these ceremonies but just sit in the back or something to that effect

So you admit that a person can be present at a non-Catholic service without sinning. You admit that mere presence is not necessarily accompanied by sin. And then you say you won't believe it unless the pope says it.

gooch, the Canon Lawyers say it. The moral theologians say it. No pope calls passive attendance a sin. That is your construction and your scruple.