Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: copticruiser on February 19, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
-
Up until now we go but not sure if we are breaking catholic teachings? Just came from a protestant wedding not sure what is the norm? Can we go I was taught as long as it's not on a Sunday?
Thanks
Your friendly Canadian :farmer:
-
Up until now we go but not sure if we are breaking catholic teachings? Just came from a protestant wedding not sure what is the norm? Can we go I was taught as long as it's not on a Sunday?
Thanks
Your friendly Canadian :farmer:
you better go confess this mortal sin..
your truthful Canadian
-
Sorry but not fond of opinions only interested in catholic teachings. Thanks!
References are a big help.
You friendly canadian :farmer
-
Don't pay any attention to gooch. He prefers his own opinion on this over the teaching of the Church.
This thread will answer your questions: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29461&min=0&num=5
-
Copticruiser, sorry for gooch's answer. You don't have to go to confession as there's nothing to confess.
Yes, you can go to a protestant wedding, funeral or baptism as a guest. You just may not participate in it. In other words you couldn't be the bridesmaid or pall bearer. Sorry I don't have references but that's what we were taught way back before Vat. II. I've never heard about the Sunday thing. I don't see why you couldn't go as long as you go to Mass first. You couldn't go to the protestant service in lieu of going to Mass on Sunday. Hope this helps. Maybe someone else can provide references. I just wanted to give the short answer so you wouldn't be worrying.
-
Presuming that neither of the couple have ever been Catholic, it's OK to attend, but not to participate in the Protestant services. Not participating includes no reciting of prayers, singing, ect.
-
This is from Fr. Jone's Moral Theology. For your question, look at 126b.
-
I wrestle with this limited permission.
On the one hand, it seems incongruous for a Catholic to attend a cult ceremony (technically, there is only one religiion - all others are cults), even passively, which implies tolerance for the sin committed; i.e., a protestant "wedding". These rites outside the Church are not valid. It's ecuмenistic.
HOWEVER, for many of us with non Catholic friends and/or family, what a difficult and painful decision.
Thank you for the thread link, Mithrandylan. Great discussion there.
-
It is not considered a sin to attend Protestant weddings or baptisms as a guest. You may not take part of their liturgical services nor pray with them though.
-
MaterDominici, thank you! I'm embarrassed to say I don't have that book in my library.
-
Copticruiser, sorry for gooch's answer. You don't have to go to confession as there's nothing to confess.
Yes, you can go to a protestant wedding, funeral or baptism as a guest. You just may not participate in it. In other words you couldn't be the bridesmaid or pall bearer. Sorry I don't have references but that's what we were taught way back before Vat. II. I've never heard about the Sunday thing. I don't see why you couldn't go as long as you go to Mass first. You couldn't go to the protestant service in lieu of going to Mass on Sunday. Hope this helps. Maybe someone else can provide references. I just wanted to give the short answer so you wouldn't be worrying.
I'll admit this is not a clear cut issue, it's a tough one
tell me if you 're so sure of yourself after reading this article
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2006_AC_Allan.html
this was my last post from the other thread, no one responded to it
The Holy Office on Worship with Non-Catholics from 1622 to 1939
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
-
Copticruiser, sorry for gooch's answer. You don't have to go to confession as there's nothing to confess.
Yes, you can go to a protestant wedding, funeral or baptism as a guest. You just may not participate in it. In other words you couldn't be the bridesmaid or pall bearer. Sorry I don't have references but that's what we were taught way back before Vat. II. I've never heard about the Sunday thing. I don't see why you couldn't go as long as you go to Mass first. You couldn't go to the protestant service in lieu of going to Mass on Sunday. Hope this helps. Maybe someone else can provide references. I just wanted to give the short answer so you wouldn't be worrying.
I'll admit this is not a clear cut issue, it's a tough one
tell me if you 're so sure of yourself after reading this article
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2006_AC_Allan.html
this was my last post from the other thread, no one responded to it
The Holy Office on Worship with Non-Catholics from 1622 to 1939
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.
-
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.
-
It is always tough.
I see it like this, if someone called my wife a liar or talked badly and insulted or mocked them, how would I feel ?
Why would I feel differently if they did the same thing to my Church ?
I guess where I would have to draw the line would be to take into account the attitude they have about the Church.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never
Again:
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
-
gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never
Again:
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.
-
gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never
Again:
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.
can you honestly say the worker who goes into a ѕуηαgσgυє to do his work, save a life or what have you is the same as someone who attends the the marriage ceremony, celebrates with them afterwards
-
gooch, Pope Pius XI stated "This Apostolic See has never
Again:
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.
can you honestly say the worker who goes into a ѕуηαgσgυє to do his work, save a life or what have you is the same as someone who attends the the marriage ceremony, celebrates with them afterwards
The point isn't that they're the same. The point is that material presence does not necessitate sin. With that mind, it should be easily conceivable how a person may conditionally be present at a non-Catholic wedding, funeral, etc. without sinning.
-
[/quote]
can you honestly say the worker who goes into a ѕуηαgσgυє to do his work, save a life or what have you is the same as someone who attends the the marriage ceremony, celebrates with them afterwards [/quote]
The point isn't that they're the same. The point is that material presence does not necessitate sin. With that mind, it should be easily conceivable how a person may conditionally be present at a non-Catholic wedding, funeral, etc. without sinning.[/quote]
I agree that it's easily conceivable that material presence at a non catholic wedding maybe done without sinning,the example of the worker saving someone's life..agreed....this doesn't answer whether someone who accepts an invitation to go to a Jєωιѕн wedding, enters the ѕуηαgσgυє, doesn't say their prayers but just listens, then afterwards party's with these Christ killers .....is not sinning, can you not see why I should question whether this action would offend God?....I have offended God for more than 3/4 of my life, I can not afford to Offend Him any more, my problem is of course by taking this stance I upset many loved ones in my family
-
besides the couple of people here that are 100% sure it's safe to passively attend the funerals and marriages of non catholics, Jєωs, novus order what have you..am I to assume everyone else is in agreement with them?
-
Since no one's arguing to the contrary, I'd say that was a safe bet.
-
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
I tend to agree with gooch here as a general feeling. Looking at his quotes I offer these observations;
The first, by Pius XI, says don't take part in assemblies which means don't assemble with them. I admit these quotes must have been written in Latin and I am only seeing a translation and I could very well be wrong.
The second, by Pius VI says don't hold communion with them. This term is even more broad than being in the same room and I'd say we here on these boards, even as spread out as we are, admit the same communion if we claim to be Catholic.
The third is more of the same, except these poor people are separated from the faithful by one doctrine and not a whole lifestyle.
Also, a requirement of attendance is if no scandal is caused. If you are known by your circle of friends as a practicing Catholic and they see you enter their temple but do not see you NOT participating, how did you not scandalize? This reminds me of the priest Eleazar who could have saved his own life by pretending to eat pork but refused. He chose to obey (and even seem to obey) a materially insignificant law for the love of God over the esteem of men.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
Since no one's arguing to the contrary, I'd say that was a safe bet.
don't quit your day job to become a gambler, since Joe Z is expressing the same doubts as I that makes 2 of us, I quickly counted 3 on your side
-
And to the OP, thank you for the post as it inspired me to reread the account for tonight's reading. 2 Machabees, chapter 6 reads like our times.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
What can I tell you, gooch? I was brought up waaay before VatII & that's what I was taught in Religion class. I had non-Catholic friends & no one seemed scandalized if we attended a non-Catholic wedding or funeral of a friend & just sat there. They knew that that's what Catholics did. If non-Catholics came to our church, the women didn't cover their heads, they just sat there too but did stand when the Gospel was read. To all of us, we just considered this common courtesy on both sides of the aisle. Why make things more demanding than need be? It was a completely different atmosphere then. Now, we have not only different branches of Protestants, but every flavor of Catholicism & all the Catholics are fighting each other & convinced that their flavor is the correct one.