Ask A Catholic II

Status
Not open for further replies.
That assumption being Sola Scriptura.

Furthermore I would add to that, that Catholic teaching in light of tradition is inextricably bound to scripture and is nowhere contradictory, It is said amongst some Catholic I know that Catholics are the only Bible Christians as Sacred Scripture as only the Catholic Church follows the bible in its totality (as opposed to picking and choosing segments). Sacred Magisterium and Sacred Tradition form one unified whole in which no part can contradict the other as they form part of a unified whole, the deposit of faith that has existed and deepened since Christ was incarnate on this earth.

Oh and the process which is indeed complex, social and human is directed BY the divine, and the increasing depth of revelation is preserved from docrinal error as according to the promises of Christ, it is hardly a human endeavour in the sense that it exists independent of the will of God as if it was a spontenous product of human opinion.
 
no as it is a virtual artistic rendering and not the actual thing. ;)

Although If you want you could do a genuflection on the left knee to represent your respect to the archetype while not commiting idolatry by indicating via another gesture (such as double genuflection) your worshiping a virtual image, although that is hardly required :p.

(Genuflection on the left knee is that of respect and honour, ie you would genuflect on that knee to kings and various emminent persons, the right knee is for adoration and worship, double genuflection being solely when the consecrated host is exposed {ie not in a tabernacle})
 
I, Domination, have returned, to tie loose ends;)

I was reading and old question in Ask A Theologian, and Plotinus said this

Well, again, that’s a minority view among Christians, or at least I should hope so. In fact there are plenty of Christians who have no objection to casual sex at all – there are even Christian swingers. I don’t believe that even traditional Catholic teaching regards casual sex as worse than massive death and suffering. You might not think it, but traditionally, Catholic ethical teaching holds that sexual sins are among the least serious. Pride, for example, is traditionally regarded as far worse.

Is this accurate? I know just about all illegitimate sexual actions (Assuming the person is knowingly doing wrong) are mortal sins, and if pride is a mortal sin, everyone is damned:rolleyes:

And, if this is wrong, what is the right viewpoint, according to the Church?

Also, can you explain how annulment differs from divorce? Is it a fancy way of saying divorce that is legitimate for a certain reason? Or is it a totally different concept?
 
I wouldn't say that the church teaches that sexual sins are not serious, but pride is the most serious mortal sin there is. Pride is a form of idolatry, the worship of the self and the rejection of the commandment to love God and to love our neighbors. It is the source of the other sins, the cause both of the fall of Man and of Lucifer.


An annulment is a different concept. It is a declaration that the marriage never actually existed. This can be done if it was discovered that the bride and groom were closely enough related for it to be incest. It could also be done if it can be demonstrated that one or both parties was mentally incapacitated (for example, drunk) and unable to give informed consent to the marriage contract. It can also be used to dissolve marriages that have not been consummated, at least if there is some reason why it cannot be consummated (such as severe erectile dysfunction for vaginismus). The church generally does not consider granting an annulment until after the couple has gotten a civil divorce. The church does not allow divorcees to remarry, but there is no such impediment after an annulment.
 
I wouldn't say that the church teaches that sexual sins are not serious, but pride is just about the most serious mortal sin there is. It is considered the first sin, that which led to Satan's fall. Pride is a form of idolatry, the idolatry of the self.

Don't ALL sins have to do with some form of pride though?

You insult someone, you're being prideful, because at least in that moment you consider them to be lower than you.

When you have sex outside of marriage, you have pride because you think you know better than what God instituted.

When you are selfish, its prideful because you believe you deserve better.

And so on....
 
The church generally does not consider granting an annulment until after the couple has gotten a civil divorce. The church does not allow divorcees to remarry, but there is no such impediment after an annulment.

…because, logically, you wouldn't be remarrying.
 
An annulment is a different concept. It is a declaration that the marriage never actually existed. This can be done if it was discovered that the bride and groom were closely enough related for it to be incest. It could also be done if it can be demonstrated that one or both parties was mentally incapacitated (for example, drunk) and unable to give informed consent to the marriage contract. It can also be used to dissolve marriages that have not been consummated, at least if there is some reason why it cannot be consummated (such as severe erectile dysfunction for vaginismus). The church generally does not consider granting an annulment until after the couple has gotten a civil divorce. The church does not allow divorcees to remarry, but there is no such impediment after an annulment.

It could also be granted if the marriage was not made in the presence of a priest or deacon, which is essentially outside the church and outside it's canon law.

http://catholicannulment.us/

Diriment Impediments

(One of these must be present to declare a marriage null.)

No intention, when marrying, to have offspring
Deception of one party by the other in order to get consent, and if the other had been aware of the truth, would not have consented to get married
Abduction with the intent to force marriage
Failure to adhere to canon law for marriages
Impediment of Crime, murder of the spouse to marry another
Undispensed defect of form, form being married in the presence of a priest or deacon and according to the required form of words.
Force or grave fear
Consanguinity (blood relationship that is too close)
Psychological state hindering the ability to consent
No intention, when marrying, to contract a lifelong relationship (pretending consent)

Note: Lack of Baptism is a serious impediment. It must be dispensed by a bishop. Also, adultery during the marriage could indicate a psychological state or lack of consent at the time of the marriage.

The Metropolitan Archbishop will review your petition and act immediately on your case within one week.

This is also important:

The Pope:

The Pope considers all Orthodox to be sister Catholic Churches. That means Orthodox have real bishops and priests.

Note: It is the Vatican that has said that the Orthodox share the Catholic Faith and are separated sister Catholic Churches. The Envoy Magizine article about Metropolitan Archbishop Cooper is misleading. The terms Orthodox Catholic and Orthodox Christian are synonomous. There are independent Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions all over the world. Archbishop Cooper's Order does NOT have gay or women priests.

Just in case some think that the church only considers roman catholic marriages to be legitimate.
 
Can I please get an answer to my latest question as soon as anyone can spare the time?
You'll probably just ask a dozen tangential questions and then a few others and so on… it'll be a mushrooming cloud probably. So, no rush.
 
I, Domination, have returned, to tie loose ends;)

I was reading and old question in Ask A Theologian, and Plotinus said this



Is this accurate? I know just about all illegitimate sexual actions (Assuming the person is knowingly doing wrong) are mortal sins, and if pride is a mortal sin, everyone is damned:rolleyes:

And, if this is wrong, what is the right viewpoint, according to the Church?

Also, can you explain how annulment differs from divorce? Is it a fancy way of saying divorce that is legitimate for a certain reason? Or is it a totally different concept?
Yes, but you misunderstand. As per the Catholic Encyclopedia
Pride said:
Pride is the excessive love of one's own excellence. It is ordinarily accounted one of the seven capital sins. St. Thomas, however, endorsing the appreciation of St. Gregory, considers it the queen of all vices, and puts vainglory in its place as one of the deadly sins. In giving it this pre-eminence he takes it in a most formal and complete signification. He understands it to be that frame of mind in which a man, through the love of his own worth, aims to withdraw himself from subjection to Almighty God, and sets at naught the commands of superiors. It is a species of contempt of God and of those who bear his commission. Regarded in this way, it is of course mortal sin of a most heinous sort. Indeed St. Thomas rates it in this sense as one of the blackest of sins. By it the creature refuses to stay within his essential orbit; he turns his back upon God, not through weakness or ignorance, but solely because in his self-exaltation he is minded not to submit. His attitude has something Satanic in it, and is probably not often verified in human beings. A less atrocious kind of pride is that which imples one to make much of oneself unduly and without sufficient warrant, without however any disposition to cast off the dominion of the Creator. This may happen, according to St. Gregory, either because a man regards himself as the source of such advantages as he may discern in himself, or because, whilst admitted that God has bestowed them, he reputes this to have been in response to his own merits, or because he attributes to himself gifts which he has not; or, finally, because even when these are real he unreasonably looks to be put ahead of others. Supposing the conviction indicated in the first two instances to be seriously entertained, the sin would be a grievous one and would have the added guilt of heresy. Ordinarily, however, this erroneous persuasion does not exist; it is the demeanour that is reprehensible. The last two cases generally speaking are not held to constitute grave offences. This is not true, however, whenever a man's arrogance is the occasion of great harm to another, as, for instance, his undertaking the duties of a physician without the requisite knowledge. The same judgment is to be rendered when pride has given rise to such temper of soul that in the pursuit of its object one is ready of anything, even mortal sin. Vainglory, ambition, and presumption are commonly enumerated as the offspring vices of pride, because they are well adapted to serve its inordinate aims. Of themselves they are venial sins unless some extraneous consideration puts them in the ranks of grievous transgressions. It should be noted that presumption does not here stand for the sin against hope. It means the desire to essay what exceeds one's capacity.

Don't ALL sins have to do with some form of pride though?

You insult someone, you're being prideful, because at least in that moment you consider them to be lower than you.

When you have sex outside of marriage, you have pride because you think you know better than what God instituted.

When you are selfish, its prideful because you believe you deserve better.

And so on....
In a different sense
 
I, Domination, have returned, to tie loose ends;)

I was reading and old question in Ask A Theologian, and Plotinus said this...

Certain sexual sins are serious although Plotinus is correct in saying that amongst grave matters their are others which are worse. Sexual sins generally are sinful in that they act contrary to the nature of the sexual act, that is denying the procreative and unitative purposes. Sexual acts which deny these purposes thus become acts of self indulgence contrary to the mutual self giving that is intrinsic to the sexual act when practices in its proper context. ie marriage.

Pride in comparison to this sort of sin is more grievous in that it is an exhaltation of the self as paragon of creation and is gravely contrary to the virtue of humility. It is also dire in that from this sense of self-exhaltation other sins flow as by exhalting the self one degrades their humanity and falls deeper into sin, as the one without humility justifies increasing degradation for self-gratification due to their pride.

The Pope:

The Pope considers all Orthodox to be sister Catholic Churches. That means Orthodox have real bishops and priests.

Note: It is the Vatican that has said that the Orthodox share the Catholic Faith and are separated sister Catholic Churches. The Envoy Magizine article about Metropolitan Archbishop Cooper is misleading. The terms Orthodox Catholic and Orthodox Christian are synonomous. There are independent Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions all over the world. Archbishop Cooper's Order does NOT have gay or women priests.

Just a correction here, the Catholic (universal) Church does consider the Eastern Orthodox Church to be a Church in the proper sense with valid holy orders (and thus their clerics are true clerics) but it DOES NOT consider them to be sister "Catholic" Churches, they are not in any way equal to the universal Church. By its very nature there is only one Catholic Church not many.

So although we do consider them Churches in the proper sense it is an unequal relationship, as due to their schism from the universal Church they are impaired in their relationship within the mystical, spiritual nature of the Church as the body of Christ in addition to being separated temporally of course.
 
To the Catholics on the board: Who are your patron saints and why?
 
Just a correction here, the Catholic (universal) Church does consider the Eastern Orthodox Church to be a Church in the proper sense with valid holy orders (and thus their clerics are true clerics) but it DOES NOT consider them to be sister "Catholic" Churches, they are not in any way equal to the universal Church. By its very nature there is only one Catholic Church not many.

So although we do consider them Churches in the proper sense it is an unequal relationship, as due to their schism from the universal Church they are impaired in their relationship within the mystical, spiritual nature of the Church as the body of Christ in addition to being separated temporally of course.

This is interesting and relevant:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Spoiler :
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

NOTE
ON THE EXPRESSION
«SISTER CHURCHES»







A. LETTER TO THE PRESIDENTS OF THE CONFERENCES OF BISHOPS





Rome, June 30, 2000

Your Eminence (Your Excellency):

In recent years, the attention of this Congregation has been directed to problems arising from the use of the phrase «sister Churches,» an expression which appears in important documents of the Magisterium, but which has also been employed in other writings, and in the discussions connected with the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. It is an expression that has become part of the common vocabulary to indicate the objective bond between the Church of Rome and Orthodox Churches.

Unfortunately, in certain publications and in the writings of some theologians involved in ecumenical dialogue, it has recently become common to use this expression to indicate the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Orthodox Church on the other, leading people to think that in fact the one Church of Christ does not exist, but may be re-established through the reconciliation of the two sister Churches. In addition, the same expression has been applied improperly by some to the relationship between the Catholic Church on the one hand, and the Anglican Communion and non-catholic ecclesial communities on the other. In this sense, a «theology of sister Churches» or an «ecclesiology of sister Churches» is spoken of, characterized by ambiguity and discontinuity with respect to the correct original meaning of the expression as found in the documents of the Magisterium.

In order to overcome these equivocations and ambiguities in the use and application of the expression «sister Churches,» the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it necessary to prepare the enclosed Note on the Expression «Sister Churches» which was approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000. The indications contained in this Note are, therefore, to be held as authoritative and binding, although the Note will not be published in official form in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, given its limited purpose of specifying the correct theological terminology on this subject.

In providing you with a copy of this document, the Congregation asks you to kindly communicate the concerns and specific indications expressed therein to your Conference of Bishops and especially to the Commission or Office entrusted with ecumenical dialogue, so that the publications and other texts of the Episcopal Conference and its various offices will carefully abide by what is established in the Note.

With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect







B. TEXT OF THE NOTE



1. The expression sister Churches occurs often in ecumenical dialogue, above all, in the dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, and is the object of continuing study by both parties. While there is certainly a legitimate use of this expression, an ambiguous use has become prevalent in contemporary writings on ecumenism. In conformity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Papal Magisterium, it is therefore appropriate to recall the correct and proper use of this expression. It is helpful to begin with a brief historical outline.

I. The origin and development of the expression

2. The expression sister Churches does not appear as such in the New Testament; however, there are numerous indications of the sisterly relations which existed among the local Churches of Christian antiquity. The New Testament passage which most explicitly reflects this awareness is the final sentence of the Second Letter of John: «The sons of your elect sister send you their greetings» (2 Jn 13). These are greetings sent by one ecclesial community to another; the community which sends the greetings calls itself the sister of the other.

3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]

4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

5. In recent times, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I, was the first to once again use the expression sister Churches. In welcoming the fraternal gestures and the call to unity addressed to him by John XXIII, he often expressed in his letters the hope of seeing the unity between the sister Churches re-established in the near future.

6. The Second Vatican Council adopted the expression sister Churches to describe the relationship between particular Churches: «in the East there flourish many particular local Churches; among them the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these, many glory in taking their origins from the apostles themselves. Therefore, there prevailed and still prevails among Eastern Christians an eager desire to perpetuate in a communion of faith and charity those family ties which ought to exist between local Churches, as between sisters.»[2]

7. The first papal document in which the term sisters is applied to the Churches is the Apostolic Brief Anno ineunte of Paul VI to the Patriarch Athenagoras I. After having indicated his willingness to do everything possible to «re-establish full communion between the Church of the West and that of the East,» the Pope asked: «Since this mystery of divine love is at work in every local Church, is not this the reason for the traditional expression “sister Churches,” which the Churches of various places used for one another? For centuries our Churches lived in this way like sisters, celebrating together the ecumenical councils which defended the deposit of faith against all corruption. Now, after a long period of division and mutual misunderstanding, the Lord, in spite of the obstacles which arose between us in the past, gives us the possibility of rediscovering ourselves as sister Churches.»[3]

8. The expression has been used often by John Paul II in numerous addresses and documents; the principal ones, in chronological order, are the following.

In the Encyclical Slavorum Apostoli: «For us they [Cyril and Methodius] are the champions and also the patrons of the ecumenical endeavour of the sister Churches of East and West, for the rediscovery through prayer and dialogue of visible unity in perfect and total communion.»[4]

In a Letter from 1991 to the Bishops of Europe: «Hence, with these Churches [the Orthodox Churches] relations are to be fostered as between sister Churches, to use the expression of Pope Paul VI in his Brief to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I.»[5]

In the Encyclical Ut unum sint, the theme is developed above all in number 56 which begins in this way: «Following the Second Vatican Council and in the light of earlier tradition, it has again become usual to refer to the particular or local Churches gathered around their Bishop as “sister Churches.” In addition, the lifting of the mutual excommunications, by eliminating a painful canonical and psychological obstacle, was a very significant step on the way toward full communion.» This section concludes by expressing the wish that the «traditional designation of “sister Churches” should ever accompany us along this path.» The topic is taken up again in number 60 of the Encyclical: «More recently, the joint international commission took a significant step forward with regard to the very sensitive question of the method to be followed in re-establishing full communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, an issue which has frequently embittered relations between Catholics and Orthodox. The commission has laid the doctrinal foundations for a positive solution to this problem on the basis of the doctrine of sister Churches.»[6]

II. Directives on the use of the expression

9. The historical references presented in the preceding paragraphs illustrate the significance which the expression sister Churches has assumed in the ecumenical dialogue. This makes the correct theological use of the term even more important.

10. In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]

11. One may also speak of sister Churches, in a proper sense, in reference to particular Catholic and non-catholic Churches; thus the particular Church of Rome can also be called the sister of all other particular Churches. However, as recalled above, one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular Church or group of Churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «our two Churches,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured.

12. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 30, 2000, the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.



+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

This part I find most relevant:

6. The Second Vatican Council adopted the expression sister Churches to describe the relationship between particular Churches: «in the East there flourish many particular local Churches; among them the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these, many glory in taking their origins from the apostles themselves. Therefore, there prevailed and still prevails among Eastern Christians an eager desire to perpetuate in a communion of faith and charity those family ties which ought to exist between local Churches, as between sisters.»

They may not be in communion with the holy see, but some originated from the apostles themselves. They are true sister churches in Christ's universal catholic church.
 
Saint Nicholas of Myra, my birthday is December 6th his feast day and he's a pretty cool guy
Polish-Santa.jpg


I think what Jehoshua was trying to point out is that while they are sister Churches they are not sister Catholic Churches.
 
Actually they are sister catholic churches. They're not sister Roman Catholic churches though, if that's what you mean.
 
Actually they are sister catholic churches. They're not sister Roman Catholic churches though, if that's what you mean.

Eastern Catholic Churches≠Orthodox Churches
 
The Patriarchal churches are not Orthodox Churches? I really did think they were, but I admit I'm not very well versed in the Orthodox churches.

Ok after looking it up it seems I got it all wrong. I apologize. Patriarchal Churches are:

http://vasi.uoregon.edu/works_patriarchal.html

instead of the Orthodox churches headed by a patriarch which I thought the term "Patriarchal Churches" referred to. It's possible that the term used by the 2nd Vatican Council doesn't refer to those four basilica...is there another definition of "Patriarchal Churches"?

I do not know a lot about the Orthodox churches and their patriarchs. But I also freely admit it...how often does someone on the internet freely admit something like that? I just hope you can see how the term confused me.

This is also an interesting history regarding patriarchs: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.html

I have a lot of studying to do still :) I just don't know enough about the Orthodox churches or even what some simple terms like "Patriarchal Churches" mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom