I have never met a Trad priest who did not teach that getting tattoed is a mortsl sin.
That is why you cannot get tattoos, go skydiving, etc.
Nonsense. So if I got a small cross tattooed on my arm with "Christianus" beneath it, that's a mortal sin?Most Coptic Christians, including Eastern Coptic Catholics, wear a small cross tattooed on their arms as a sign that they are Christians.
Tattoos were always a clear indicator of no class,Tramp stamps. Ha ha.
I actually have a serious question. I do understand now that tattoos are a mortal sin, but I was wondering if adding to one that’s already there a mortal sin? More to take away from the reason I got it.Would you entertain the idea of having your tattoo removed?
Would you entertain the idea of having your tattoo removed?I have about 5. It would cost an astonishing amount of money, one I have would cost a 1-2 grand easy because of placement. Tattoos are cheaper to get, and way more expensive to get rid of.
This would be a good example to your children: to undo the wrong.
I don't know whether or not tattoos are a mortal sin (I think this would depend on every particular situation, motive, amount, theme, etc.).I wonder whether it would qualify as a form of "self-mutilation" which is a sin.
I have about 5. It would cost an astonishing amount of money, one I have would cost a 1-2 grand easy because of placement. Tattoos are cheaper to get, and way more expensive to get rid of.Can you cover up these tattoos by wearing modest apparel so that your children and others will not see them?
I'm pretty sure that I recently heard Fr. Ripperger mention this in one of his audio sermons. (As yes, being a grave sin.) Same with tongue piercings -- and such individuals should not be given HC until the disgusting ring is removed.
Would you entertain the idea of having your tattoo removed?
This would be a good example to your children: to undo the wrong.
I wonder whether it would qualify as a form of "self-mutilation" which is a sin.
We're now putting getting a small tattoo in the same category (mortal sin) as, say, fornication?Who said anything about fornication? Are you aware that there are degrees of gravity among grave sins?
Ladislaus, how you can have spent time in an SSPX seminary and not know this is perplexing, because they teach this, as several others here have attested to.
Who said anything about fornication? Are you aware that there are degrees of gravity among grave sins?
I'm thinking of getting a tattoo of hair on the crown of my head.
Other than the body is the temple, how exactly is this a desecration? In some English I have a possibility of following and understanding :confused:
A Mortal sin is mortal when only the three conditions have been met.The second one, "Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner", is erroneously used today to excuse ALL sinners and all persons in non-Catholic false religions from just about anything. Today the Aztecs who sacrificed living men's hearts and then ate the arms and legs, would be considered saved if they were not clearly taught that it was wrong.
- Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
- Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
- Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner
In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:
This means that mortal sins cannot be done "accidentally." A person who commits a mortal sin is one who knows that their sin is wrong, but still deliberately commits the sin anyway. This means that mortal sins are "premeditated" by the sinner and thus are truly a rejection of God’s law and love.
The second one, "Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner", is erroneously used today to excuse ALL sinners and all persons in non-Catholic false religions from just about anything.
Yeah, I don't see how putting a cross or a rose somewhere modest counts as "desecration".Beware! The rose does have Rosicrucian implications.
Can you cover up these tattoos by wearing modest apparel so that your children and others will not see them?All except one is covered by clothes, or hair.
Some doctors in the past were advertising free or reduced cost removal of tattoos.
Whatever you do, please do not add more tattoos because there is always a risk of infection or reaction to the ink.
Less is best.
But the Church has never condemned earrings, and those too are technically a mutilation.True.
Beware! The rose does have Rosicrucian implications.
.
On the other hand, wearing the tattooed Sign of the Cross on the wrist, as is the standard custom in the East, might repel a Moslem from raping an Eastern Catholic girl or woman as she is marked as a Christian from birth even if she were to be stolen from her parents as an infant. Her ears are also pierced and a tiny earring of the Cross is given her. She is also signed with the Cross at Baptism. Thus, she is marked three times with the Holy Cross.
.
Raids upon Eastern Christian homes do occur where infants and girls are held captive and then adopted into Muslim families to be raised as Muslims or as sex slaves. Boys over the age of five and men are usually killed. Let us pray for these Christians.
True.
Something about tattoos reminds me of branding. As if we were animals.
Is this true, that they will leave the girls alone if they are marked as Christians?Miracles do happen.
You're right. I mentioned a rose and a cross in the same thread. Maybe I too, like Bishop Williamson, and a secret Rosicrucian.
Yes, it does. But what if I WANTED to brand myself as belonging to Christ?Christ has never commanded us to do such a thing.
Christ has never commanded us to do such a thing.We are signed with the Holy Cross at our baptism.
We are signed with the Holy Cross at our baptism.Agreed. There is no reason to brand our bodies. I'm not saying it's a "sin", but it doesn't seem right.
Other than the body is the temple, how exactly is this a desecration? In some English I have a possibility of following and understanding :confused:I can't remember all the details I've read on this subject, but the sin committed is the sin of pride. By getting tattoos, you're inordinately decorating(?) yourself, you show your body off by inordinately having certain parts of your body stand out, proudly putting yourself on display.
Pleased you brought up the subject of paganism. The more pagan our society becomes the more people are tattooed.I’d have to agree with this to a point.. most of my tattoos I got where during some very lost distressing times in my life. It was a way of marking it for me.
But although vanity may come into it, I believe that it's largely to do with a lack or loss of identity. Think of how many children grow up today without knowing who they are because they have no knowledge of their fathers.
What Catholic, sure of his/her value in God's eyes, has him/herself tattooed?
A tattoo is the mark of slavery, or as someone else pointed out, cattle is marked by their owner with his brand. It is especially sad to see people permanently marked, especially on their faces.
Tattooing is an ancient pagan practice.
It is NOT licit for Catholics.
I’d have to agree with this to a point.. most of my tattoos I got where during some very lost distressing times in my life. It was a way of marking it for me.
Depends on what they depict. I know a catholic man from the Middle East who has a tattoo of a cross on the volar side of his right wrist. He got this tattoo when he was a baby.
Different people have different motivations. Some get them because they feel unattractive. Some get them for attention. Some get them for impure reasons. Some get them as matters of pride, such as a world War II veteran who has "U.S.M.C." on his upper arm, or an American flag, or a cross. Some get the old "heart" tattoo with the name of their beloved to indicate that they belong to them. I know a couple Traditional Catholics who have crosses tattooed on their arms.My husband has a full sleeve tattoo of Michael fighting Satan which I honestly am not sure why he got, and besides it looking cool im not sure he knows either
Take it or leave it, but I wouldn't add anymore ink to your body, even if you're trying to fix a bad tattoo, just for medical reasons.That’s kinda where I’m sitting.. waste of money too.
My husband has a full sleeve tattoo of Michael fighting Satan which I honestly am not sure why he got, and besides it looking cool im not sure he knows eitherMany of these things are done unconsciously, but St Michael fighting Satan is a sign that your husband desires for Good to defeat evil. It's just a shame that it's on his arm and not a beautiful painting on your wall. I have a beautiful depiction of St George and the dragon on the wall of my study.
...
The reason I asked if it’s a sin to continue adding was because I wanted to take a tattoo I got from an extremely abusive relationship, and turn it into a domestic violence awareness tattoo. So, I do know tattoos have meanings for everyone
Many of these things are done unconsciously, but St Michael fighting Satan is a sign that your husband desires for Good to defeat evil. It's just a shame that it's on his arm and not a beautiful painting on your wall. I have a beautiful depiction of St George and the dragon on the wall of my study.Don’t want to turn this into a discussion on this thread, but domestic violence is probably the most underrated cause in the US. Every 9 seconds a woman is attacked by a partner. Men are being abused at the same rate, and it’s even worse for them because “oh, your a man and couldn’t fight off a woman?”. It’s not brainwashing... it’s a serious problem that almost got me killed becaue the cops said “oh you don’t hug him enough.”
...
I'm pleased to see from your posts after this one that you are decided not to "improve on" that particular tattoo. Believe me, a domestic violence awareness tattoo would be no improvement. Domestic violence awareness is a part of the brainwashing that is being perpetrated on our society.
.
Just use these marks of your past suffering as a reminder that God must love you very much to have enabled you to move out of your painful past.
Maria Regina posted that this was common for Catholics in Muslim regions.Because there's no need to "improve upon" the human body, including the Catholic human body. If we want to be visible about our faith (many do, rightly so), we can wear crosses around our necks, scapulars, miraculous medals properly blessed. Etc. Those are all visible marks of Catholicism, but one is not a better or more convicted Catholic for penetrating one's Catholic identity into the skin. It's living the invisible mark of Baptism and our Confirmation that gives us the genuine and most persuasive visibility He wants from us.
Some posters mentioned that we don't need tattoos because we have the mark of Baptism. Sure, but that's not a visible mark. What's wrong with adopting also a visible mark of being Catholic?
Because there's no need to "improve upon" the human body, including the Catholic human body. If we want to be visible about our faith (many do, rightly so), we can wear crosses around our necks, scapulars, miraculous medals properly blessed. Etc. Those are all visible marks of Catholicism, but one is not a better or more convicted Catholic for penetrating one's Catholic identity into the skin. It's living the invisible mark of Baptism and our Confirmation that gives us the genuine and most persuasive visibility He wants from us.Nevertheless, the miraculous medal and the scapular are powerful sacramentals.
Because there's no need to "improve upon" the human body, including the Catholic human body. If we want to be visible about our faith (many do, rightly so), we can wear crosses around our necks, scapulars, miraculous medals properly blessed. Etc. Those are all visible marks of Catholicism, but one is not a better or more convicted Catholic for penetrating one's Catholic identity into the skin. It's living the invisible mark of Baptism and our Confirmation that gives us the genuine and most persuasive visibility He wants from us.
it would come as a surprise to crusaders and pilgrims who got tattooed upon completion of their pilgrimages to the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. Also not just Copts but other eastern Christians receive them and many times especially they are used to show to security at church doors to prove they are faithful church members.
Because there's no need to "improve upon" the human body, including the Catholic human body. If we want to be visible about our faith (many do, rightly so), we can wear crosses around our necks, scapulars, miraculous medals properly blessed. Etc. Those are all visible marks of Catholicism, but one is not a better or more convicted Catholic for penetrating one's Catholic identity into the skin. It's living the invisible mark of Baptism and our Confirmation that gives us the genuine and most persuasive visibility He wants from us.I guess Our Lady erred when She asked us all to wear the scapular. I guess the Church errs when She has religious wear habits or cassocks.
Getting a small tattoo of a cross is not mean as an "improvement" to the body, but the imposition of a sign of devotion to Our Lord.Arbitrarily painting a wall with graffiti is defacement even if the painting is religious. Painting the face of a church is a desecration even if it is a painting of something religious (unless a church authority advised it and then he would put himself in an interesting position). Paintings belong on secondary medium, not something like the body or a church. Broadcasting pictures of God's creatures on the Vatican was a desecration even though a lot of people imagined it was a beautiful thing. Permanently painting the body is a desecration of the temple of the Holy Ghost no matter what the content. The body does not belong to the person running around in it, it belongs to God. While it seems harmless enough in some instances, where is the reasonable cut-off point unless it is at the beginning?
Wow, more gross condemnations and anathemas from Happenby. I’m glad you weren’t part of the Inquisition; there’d be no Catholics left alive.I didn't make the condemnations or anathemas, I just believe them.
Is is possible for a Catholic to commit a mortal sin through ignorance?..
If so, then are they fully culpable when they discover it along with the obligation to confess?..
Arbitrarily painting a wall with graffiti is defacement even if the painting is religious. Painting the face of a church is a desecration even if it is a painting of something religious (unless a church authority advised it and then he would put himself in an interesting position). Paintings belong on secondary medium, not something like the body or a church. Broadcasting pictures of God's creatures on the Vatican was a desecration even though a lot of people imagined it was a beautiful thing. Permanently painting the body is a desecration of the temple of the Holy Ghost no matter what the content. The body does not belong to the person running around in it, it belongs to God. While it seems harmless enough in some instances, where is the reasonable cut-off point unless it is at the beginning?
I didn't make the condemnations or anathemas, I just believe them.
I disagree ... to a point. It is not possible to commit a mortal sin without full knowledge and advertence. Here I distinguish mortal sin from grave sin. Mortal sin causes the loss of sanctifying grace. So a 3-year-old child can commit a GRAVE sin but not a mortal sin, because he has not reached the age of reason. I personally would confess all grave sins I have committed because I can never be sure about the degree of my ignorance and/or culpability. Even ignorance can be culpable.I've never heard of the difference between grave and mortal - it's all the same. An act is mortal/grave depending on the act, not depending on the person's knowledge. Just as truth exists outside of ourselves (and has nothing to do with our knowledge/belief of said truth), so the evil of mortal sin exists outside of ourself, regardless of our knowledge or culpability of it.
Nevertheless, the miraculous medal and the scapular are powerful sacramentals.Show me where I opposed sacramentals. Those are external to the body, and I specifically included them in my list. Again, marking the body does not give one greater protection than prayer, sacramentals, and sanctifying grace. The Roman Catholic Church has never declared tattoos to be in the category of sacramentals.
Can you produce Church teaching which states: "If anyone receives a tattoo, even for reasons of piety and devotion, let him be anathema."? Or anything from the Church Magisterium or universal Patristic consensus regarding tattoos?Of course the Church doesn't say it that way. Scripture explains how people convince themselves that anything they do is good: John 16:2 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/john/16/) "They will put you out of the ѕуηαgσgυє; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God." People convince themselves that all sorts of things are ok. The Church tells us not to mutilate the body. You seem to suggest that mutilation is in the eye of the beholder, so, if one likes it, it isn't mutilation. The Church doesn't qualify it like that. The question coming up now is this: will someone go to hell for tattooing, who didn't know it was wrong? Perhaps not, if they recovered their lives on other issues and would have been sorry or confessed if they were told about it, and yet were never told. I assume God knows who is and who isn't sorry for their sins and takes true ignorance into account. But that means their ignorance was not purposeful. This is the reason why people should know before they make a mistake like that and if they have made the mistake, to go to confession. SSPX priests teach this is how to take care of the problem. This isn't a condemnation, but a call to truthful information and reconciliation with God.
There's a difference between being illicit and always a mortal sin.Ask your priest.
And Christmas trees are also an ancient pagan practice. As are Easter eggs, or in fact the very word Easter. Things change over time.
Wow, more gross condemnations and anathemas from Happenby. I’m glad you weren’t part of the Inquisition; there’d be no Catholics left alive.All those Mexicans I've seen with a giant Our Lady Of Guadalupe tattoo on their backs are really devout and headed straight to heaven.
I've never heard of the difference between grave and mortal - it's all the same. An act is mortal/grave depending on the act, not depending on the person's knowledge. Just as truth exists outside of ourselves (and has nothing to do with our knowledge/belief of said truth), so the evil of mortal sin exists outside of ourself, regardless of our knowledge or culpability of it.
Ask your priest.
They teach it is a mortal sin.
All those Mexicans I've seen with a giant Our Lady Of Guadalupe tattoo on their backs are really devout and headed straight to heaven.
/sarcasm
The Church tells us not to mutilate the body.
Nevertheless, the miraculous medal and the scapular are powerful sacramentals.That’s a crazy story :o
When I was attacked by a woman who had told me earlier that she was raised as a child under Russian communism, she used a powerful form of hypnosis on me. She just stared into my eyes and I was rendered powerless. I could not defend myself as she tried to strangle me. My husband yelled and was able to break\the satanic spell, and I was able to get away from her. No doubt, she was a trained agent in order to do that. She had no morals at all.
Immediately after that attack, I called my priest. He asked me if I had worn my miraculous medal that day. I confessed that I had forgotten to put it on after taking my shower.
Wearing the miraculous medal is not a superstition, but instead it is a devout practice asking our Lady to protect us. Many soldiers during WWII told of that metal taking the bullet for them.
When an individual undergoes the ordeal of tattooing for the sake of God, he is greatly praised. But one who submits himself to be tattooed for superstitious reasons in the manner of the heathens will derive no benefit there from.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/what-the-early-church-had-to-say-about-tattoosA few sentences later on this same page...
Here's one quote from a Council in England ... held in A.D. 787.
“No man shall let his hair grow long or tattoo himself as do the heathen, those apostles of Satan who make themselves despicable by indulging in lewd and lascivious thoughts. Do not associate with those who mark themselves with thorns and needles so that their blood flows to the earth."
The first evidence of a Christian tattoo tradition traces back to the Holy Land and Egypt as early as the 6th or 7th Century. From there, the tradition spread throughout Eastern Christian communities such as the Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac and Maronite Churches. To this day, many Coptic Churches require a tattoo of a cross or other proof of Christian faith to enter a church. (Tattoo traditions among groups such as Celtic and Croatian Catholics emerged separately and at a later date.)
With the advent of the Crusades beginning in 1095, the existing practice of tattooing pilgrims to the Holy Land expanded to the European visitors. Numerous accounts dating back to the 1600s describe Christian pilgrims taking part in already long-existing customs of receiving a tattoo upon completing a visit to the Holy City – a custom that survives to this day.
If we do not have knowledge or culpability, then we do not lose sanctifying grace. It is called mortal precisely for the fact that it extinguishes sanctifying grace. When speaking of objectively grave matter, the term grave is used rather than mortal. Someone could perform an objectively grave action that does not extinguish the life of the soul. Yes, people regularly use these terms loosely and interchangeably but it's important to be precise when discussion the notions theologically.Good points.
A few sentences later on this same page...
St Basil the Great famously preached in the 4th century:
But one who submits himself to be tattooed for superstitious reasons in the manner of the heathens will derive no benefit there from.
I disagree ... to a point. It is not possible to commit a mortal sin without full knowledge and advertence. Here I distinguish mortal sin from grave sin. Mortal sin causes the loss of sanctifying grace. So a 3-year-old child can commit a GRAVE sin but not a mortal sin, because he has not reached the age of reason. I personally would confess all grave sins I have committed because I can never be sure about the degree of my ignorance and/or culpability. Even ignorance can be culpable.
Since this is in the context of tattoos, I'm guessing that we're talking about someone who is now convinced that the tattoos he/she received in the past were grave matter but did not consider it such in the past. I would confess the sin, although some schools of moral theology (such as the probabilist views of St. Alphonsus) would remove the obligation (since there's doubt). There COULD have been a sufficient degree of culpability in the ignorance, but probabilism would excuse from the obligation to confess if it's not certain that a mortal sin was committed. Probabilism is also the philosophy suggested for those who have issues with scrupulosity.
Did not Our Lady of Fatima say that there are many people in Hell, including children as young as two and three?But then why don’t kids go to confession at that age...? It doesn’t make sense God would condemn kids that young...
.
Did not St. Therese of Liseau say that she had reached the age of reason by three years of age?
Did not Our Lady of Fatima say that there are many people in Hell, including children as young as two and three?Can you provide a link to that quote from Fatima? Never heard that or thought that the Church taught that?
.
Did not St. Therese of Liseau say that she had reached the age of reason by three years of age?
Can you provide a link to that quote from Fatima? Never heard that or thought that the Church taught that?I think it was in a Fatima Crusader, but that was long ago.
Did not Our Lady of Fatima say that there are many people in Hell, including children as young as two and three?
.
Did not St. Therese of Liseau say that she had reached the age of reason by three years of age?
Can you provide a link to that quote from Fatima? Never heard that or thought that the Church taught that?Same, I never heard of that in the Fatima message.
I believe that it would be a very extraordinary thing for a child under the age of 7 to be capable of committing a mortal sin; my general feeling is that they would have to be closer to 9 or 10 in most cases. This does not mean that they are not capable of reason TO AN EXTENT. This is probably true from the age of 3 or 4 up. But to be able to sufficiently and fully understand the nature of grave sin and to deliberately will it, I suspect that very few children under 7 would be capable of it.Regarding the first paragraph:
I don't like the phrase "reach the age of reason". There's no magical "age of reason", but a gradual progression to reason. If there's an "age of reason", the expression means, rather, the age that the Church uses as a rule of thumb for a child having attained a degree of reasoning sufficient to commit grave sin.
Actually Ladislaus, easterners commune from birth, the exception is the most latinized like maronites.Also, some Eastern Catholic infants will refuse Holy Communion. This is especially true when these toddlers are in their terrible twos.
You also should know that pagan practice was to actually create a physical scarring well beyond just a tattoo, their tattoos were actually carved in the flesh not just inking the skin.Like so: https://australianmuseum.net.au/aboriginal-scarification
To compare a small cross to physical scarring(which is what is described in scripture) is a stretchIt sure is a stretch.
Actually Ladislaus, easterners commune from birth, the exception is the most latinized like maronites.
Understand the feeling about toddlers but have never experienced it, usually they are carried or if not behaving are removed from church. The canons require Latins to commune all eastern children who approach the rail though. Will find a brochure and post it if I can remember where it is. Again unless Orthodox children are accompanied to communion.
Actually Ladislaus, easterners commune from birth, the exception is the most latinized like maronites.Eastern Catholic churches were required to conform to Latin Rite practice of no communion for infants till they had reached the proper age, till Vatican II, the false council, changed everything. Therefore, any Eastern Catholic that is allowing their infants to receive communion, is following Vatican II church. Moreover, Catholics were not allowed to switch rites at their own pleasure like many Catholics do today, that too is a Vatican II thing. Both are following a false council because it suits them.
Eastern Catholic churches were required to conform to Latin Rite practice of no communion for infants till they had reached the proper age, till Vatican II, the false council, changed everything. Therefore, any Eastern Catholic that is allowing their infants to receive communion, is following Vatican II church. Moreover, Catholics were not allowed to switch rites at their own pleasure like many Catholics do today, that too is a Vatican II thing. Both are following a false council because it suits them.
Eastern Catholic churches were required to conform to Latin Rite practice of no communion for infants till they had reached the proper age, till Vatican II, the false council, changed everything. Therefore, any Eastern Catholic that is allowing their infants to receive communion, is following Vatican II church. Moreover, Catholics were not allowed to switch rites at their own pleasure like many Catholics do today, that too is a Vatican II thing. Both are following a false council because it suits them..
The notion of not changing rites is an erroneous notion about Benedict XIV encyclical, it was about Catholic faithful living in greek areas of Italy and Greece who were attending ORTHODOX services and attempting to change Churches because of an accord between Rome and Greece that did not have anything to do with intercommunion. Latins were using the accord and good will to gain favor of the locals and pretending they were able to attend Orthodox services without prejudice without getting Roman approval giving the appearance that you could change to Orthodoxy. This is why the encyclical was written. It is true that traditionally that easterners were forbidden to join the Latin Church by Leo XIII because of the small numbers of Eastern CatholicsI think you are winging just about everything you write, since few here know anything about Eastern Rites. Latin Rite Catholics would have had to get special permission from their bishop to switch rites, say if they were moving somewhere where there was no other choice. It rarely happened.
…. Eastern Catholics rarely go to Confession, so much so that one Ukrainian priest preaches about and promotes Confession nearly every week ... to no avail.It is called sacrilege, it is also a practice in the counterfeit Vatican II church.
I think you are winging just about everything you write, since few here know anything about Eastern Rites. Latin Rite Catholics would have had to get special permission from their bishop to switch rites, say if they were moving somewhere where there was no other choice. It rarely happened.
"In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a king". .
It is called sacrilege, it is also a practice in the counterfeit Vatican II church.
Not winging it, spent the last 30 years alternating attendance at Eastern Liturgies, and after three years of Traditional Monastic formation, decided that the ancient Antiochian traditions were the closest thing to traditional monasticism still in existence. :)Are you a Catholic?
I suspect that this goes back to long before Vatican II in the Eastern Rites. I believe that it's more due to poor catechesis regarding the Sacraments.This is basic stuff, going to communion in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege. I think the Eastern clergy have been for centuries too busy keeping their wives happy to have time to think about such "trivial things" such as sacrilege, the age of reason, marriage for life..... The Eastern religions are a just a cultural thing.
This is basic stuff, going to communion in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege. I think the Eastern clergy have been for centuries too busy keeping their wives happy to have time to think about such "trivial things" such as sacrilege, the age of reason, marriage for life..... The Eastern religions are a just a cultural thing.
This is basic stuff, going to communion in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege.
It's basic stuff for someone who has been taught to regurgitate the Baltimore Catechism, but not so basic if you never went to any kind of Catechism. Eastern thinking tends to be more abstract, and they don't appear to be very good at clearly defining concepts the way we do in the West due to the scholastic theological movement. They never really had a scholastic period where the emphasis was on being precise in your terms and definitions.You are talking to a public school educated person who was basically never catechized. I don't even remember ever going to Sunday school for 1st communion, all I remember is the nice white suit and arm band and hair cut, and I only remember that because I have a picture. Then there was my Confirmation at 13, I learned nothing there either, we were 6 wild public school boys in the Sunday school class, and all we did was throw things at each other, our teacher was a layman. When the bishop came, we were put together with the Catholic school class of like 30 students and we hid in the back and never had to answer a question. I learned NOTHING, and that Confirmation was 2 years before the Novus Ordo. I lived my life in the world for the first 40 years with no knowledge of "concepts" as you call it. I stopped going to mass shortly after my confirmation, at like 14. I had zero learning and yet I knew not to go to communion whenever I went to many many weddings or funerals during the next 26 years. I knew that if I did, God work strike me down and turn me into a piece of fried bacon. How is it possible that an Easter Catholic person who goes to mass every Sunday all their lives never learned something so basic?
None of this stuff is obvious if you haven't been catechised properly.We have an obligation to have a well-formed conscience. If we do not, we will be judged on our sinful omission. Also, impure thoughts would be known to be wrong by the heart/conscience just because of the natural law. When one is a teenager and they encounter such temptations for the first time, you know such things are wrong. A faulty conscience due to poor catechesis is not a complete excuse, but just partially.
You are making excuses for them, their faith is just a cultural thing, no different today than any South American.Agree.
We have an obligation to have a well-formed conscience. If we do not, we will be judged on our sinful omission. Also, impure thoughts would be known to be wrong by the heart/conscience just because of the natural law. When one is a teenager and they encounter such temptations for the first time, you know such things are wrong. A faulty conscience due to poor catechesis is not a complete excuse, but just partially.
You are making excuses for them, their faith is just a cultural thing, no different today than any South American.
It is due to poor catechism. Eastern churches are set up in the old country in such a way that all events take place around the Church so usually catechism became mostly un needed, in the diaspora it is a big problem. I know of two divorced persons who told me that had they been at home the priests would have explained things to them, but they got no advice in the US. When they went home to the Mother country the priests explained how horrible their divorce was, now they have such regrets.As Confederate Catholic points out, the Eastern Catholics rely on their Churches/priests moreso than we do in the West. So poor catechesis is why they don't know better. Ok, fine, but if they don't realize that they are dependent upon their priests for guidance, then they must be pretty obtuse.
QuoteLast Tradhican wrote: You are making excuses for them, their faith is just a cultural thing, no different today than any South American.
Your entire posting is one continuous straw man, my quick comments below. You should ask questions before you make such leaps.
What an arrogant, judgmental blowhard you are. I doubt you even know any Eastern Catholics. Of course you'll find some "cultural" Catholics in any cross-section, but this is by no means limited to the Eastern Rite. Even in the Roman Rite, you'll find many whose faith is mostly cultural: Irish, Hungarians, Polish, etc. (that extension should be obvious in my saying that they are no different than any South American today.) This is by no means unique to the Eastern Rites (I never said it was unique to them, again, it should be obvious that I extended it to the Spanish, Irish, Hungarians, Polish, Italians.... ). Yet in all these groups there are also many who take their faith seriously (If there weren't, there would be no Catholics left in the world) . There's nothing to prevent the faith from being both religious AND cultural (another strawman). In fact, that's IDEAL, that our society and culture should be thoroughly imbued with the faith (is that supposed to be some kind of . And it's the same in the Eastern Rites; there are good, bad, and lukewarm in every group, even among Traditional Catholics. You on the other hand never allow anyone to have any excuse (strawman). Be very careful, since when you die you're going to be judged with the same judgment that you yourself applied towards others, and I'd be very afraid to be in your shoes at your judgment. So, while knowing next to nothing about them, you presume to dismiss all those in the Eastern "religions" as cultural Catholics.
I only responded because I respect the writer, He should think or ask questions before undertaking to waste both our times
It is due to poor catechism.Here is an example posted by you that directly contradicts your poor catechesis theory and confirms what I stated that it is very convenient "not to know".
Overall, I like the Catholic Eastern Rites, but I've seen a fair bit of "sloppiness" that needs to be corrected. Also, Eastern Catholics rarely go to Confession, so much so that one Ukrainian priest preaches about and promotes Confession nearly every week ... to no avail. There's a prayer everyone recites before Communion that is kind of an Act of Contrition, and I have this feeling that most people think it renders them worthy to receive even if they're not in a state of grace.
Overall, I like the Catholic Eastern Rites, but I've seen a fair bit of "sloppiness" that needs to be corrected. Also, Eastern Catholics rarely go to Confession, so much so that one Ukrainian priest preaches about and promotes Confession nearly every week ... to no avail. There's a prayer everyone recites before Communion that is kind of an Act of Contrition, and I have this feeling that most people think it renders them worthy to receive even if they're not in a state of grace.What about abortion and birth control? Are they also lax on that? Did you see children? My old aunt ended going to a Melkite Catholic church because it was next door to her home. Prectically everyone there was Latin Rite Catholic. They had no week day mass, only Sundays.
What about abortion and birth control? Are they also lax on that? Did you see children? My old aunt ended going to a Melkite Catholic church because it was next door to her home. Prectically everyone there was Latin Rite Catholic. They had no week day mass, only Sundays.
And in the above example, assuming the Eastern priests gave them all kinds of marriage preparation, how do they not know the weight of their marriage VOWS? How did they not know divorce wasn't wrong? I don't buy this. Marriage as a lifetime committment has been culturally/globally-wide since the beginning of time. If they truly "didn't get it", then they must've been partially retarded.
Here is an example posted by you that directly contradicts your poor catechesis theory and confirms what I stated that it is very convenient "not to know".
Yes, lots of Latin Rite refugees after Vatican II to the Eastern Rites.It can go the other way, too. I saw a Ukrainian church get so fed up with a liberal N.O. biritual priest that several families started going to the "unapproved" Latin Mass in the area. The Ukrainian families went back when the Ukrainian church got a new Byzantine-trained priest.
This thread has strayed from the initial topic.
I though it was because someone claimed their priest said that Our Lady of Fatima said that 2 and 3 year olds go to hell. This transitioned into a discussion of sacrament being administered to the very young. It was a good discussion on the age of reason though.Our Lady never said any such thing
Our Lady never said any such thingI know, that's why I asked for proof of that statement
Did not Our Lady of Fatima say that there are many people in Hell, including children as young as two and three?
.
Did not St. Therese of Liseau say that she had reached the age of reason by three years of age?
Is there a valid Catholic reason why, in the 20th or 21st centuries, any Catholic not living in a Muslim country can justify choosing to get a tattoo?There is also a certain amount of risk in getting a tattoo, disease, reaction, they degrade over time amd stretch with the skin, I would think unless you had a really good reason, why do it? Maybe to like fix an old one and turn it into some type of devotional picture I would think would be good.
My daughter's boyfriend has a tattoo on his forearm stating he is a Type1 diabetic. His mom suggested it so that when he goes into diabetic shock and is in the ER unable to speak, medical professionals know why.People with health issues used to wear a bracelet that indicated what the issue was, fortunately it was easily removed.
Is there a valid Catholic reason why, in the 20th or 21st centuries, any Catholic not living in a Muslim country can justify choosing to get a tattoo?
My daughter's boyfriend has a tattoo on his forearm stating he is a Type1 diabetic. His mom suggested it so that when he goes into diabetic shock and is in the ER unable to speak, medical professionals know why.Here you have answered a question that was also in my mind.
And in NZ https://www.newzealand.com/au/feature/ta-moko-maori-tattoo/THE MEANING OF TĀ MOKO, TRADITIONAL MĀORI TATTOOS(https://www.newzealand.com/assets/Campaigns/FY-20-Campaigns/FY20-Brand-Welcome/GMW-Still-Assets/Job1689_Tnz_Hikurangi_Mc_0675_Final_HR__aWxvdmVrZWxseQo_FocalPointCropWzQyMCw5NjAsNTAsNTAsNzUsImpwZyIsNjUsMi41XQ.jpg)
Mount Hikurangi, Eastland, TairawhTā moko – the art of Māori tattoo – is a unique expression of cultural heritage and identity.
In Māori culture (https://www.newzealand.com/au/maori-culture/), it reflects the individual's whakapapa (ancestry) and personal history. In earlier times it was an important signifier of social rank, knowledge, skill and eligibility to marry.
The question should be, whether Tattoos are grave matter, or are per se grave matter, but not whether "Tattoos are a mortal sin".Typically, speaking particularly of tattoos these days, getting oneself tattooed is a matter of exploiting one's own vanity by calling attention too or showing off their body or parts of their body, regardless of whatever other reason one uses for getting one.
People with health issues used to wear a bracelet that indicated what the issue was, fortunately it was easily removed.He has a metal allergy hence the tattoo.
I have never met a Trad priest who did not teach that getting tattoed is a mortsl sin.
I have never met one who said that a small tattoo was a mortal sin.I have never met one who has spoken on the issue.
Yeah, I'm not just seeing it. Based on what principle of moral theology is any tattoo grave matter? I could see the gross excesses that some people go to, due to disfigurement of the body ... along with those gross piercings. But to make an analogy with piercing, I can't see how a woman piercing her ears for some earrings would be grave matter, whereas those bizarre tongue piercings and nose piercings definitely cross a line. I would think it's the same for a tattoo. If it doesn't grossly disfigure the body, I can't imagine a principle of moral theology that would make it grave matter or even venial matter. And probably some tattoos would be serious depending on what they were. But a small cross tattooed on someone's upper arm, for instance, I just can't see it.With piercings, it would be more a potential sin against modesty (in this case, adorning oneself flamboyantly and gratuitously, not a question of sɛҳuąƖ impurity), and a sin of pride and vanity (again, the flamboyance and "look at me!" factor, in the case of exaggerated and too-numerous piercings, or piercings in outrageous places), than a mutilation of the Temple of the Holy Ghost. As I said above, piercings will heal back up in short order, if you leave them alone and don't put anything back through them. The piercing, all by itself, is probably so trivial, as to be no sin at all. Ultimately, I would defer to a traditional Catholic priest on that last point.