Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As TCWITPAFOT1T315 said I am not sure this is even taught or known by many Catholics these days. I certainly don’t recall learning it.
"LARobert":3k1e8a96 wrote:Fisheaters has much good information. However as you have suspected they are Sede Vacantists. Sede Vecante or the Chair is Vacant is authentically the period between the death (or in rare instances resignation) of one Pope and the election of the next. There are several Sede groups around, Fish Eaters is one who do not believe there has been a Pope since the death of Pope Pius XII.[/quote:3k1e8a96]
LARobert, I almost wrote this exact same thing, but then deleted it because I read the following on their website:"http://www.fisheaters.com/contact.html#faith":3k1e8a96 wrote:I believe Vatican II was a valid, pastoral Ecumenical Council convoked and approbated by true Popes. I believe the documents from the Council were badly and ambiguously written and that said documents need to be interpreted only in light of tradition instead of — as is all too often the case now — by the media and those with a revolutionary agenda.I believe that Benedict XVI is the true Pope and that we must pray for him and his Bishops every day.[/quote:3k1e8a96]
I thought it used to be one of those sede-vacantist sites, but maybe something changed. It seems that Fisheaters advocates for a return to Traditional Catholicism, but accepts Vatican II and the pope, etc.Leegal, your question is very a good one and one that Catholics and non-Catholics have fought about for centuries – that of Church authority and big “t” Tradition.
I should rephrase my earlier statement that the Bible says nothing explicit about ghosts. While the Church might say something more explicit (and by Church I mean the Magisterium of the Church, the bishops, who have been given teaching authority by Christ) where the Church derives its information could be implicitly from Scripture and by Tradition that has been handed on over the two millennia of Christianity.
So it isn’t a question of which to believe; that would be a false dichotomy. If the Church teaches it, the majority of the time it can be found either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture buttressed by the lived tradition of Christians that have come 2000 years before us.
Hi Marie. The Catholic faith has no opinion on the matter. Some people feel strongly about attending Mass on the anniversary of a loved one’s death, especially if they have asked for the Mass to be celebrated in that person’s honor (called a Mass intention).
One solution would be to ask your granddaughter’s parents to schedule future birthday parties around future anniversary Masses. Knowing that this is an important family custom could help both sides to make some sort of compromise. It might be a tough negotiation, but if everyone is reasonable it seems that both occasions can be celebrated.
Since he is bound by the seal of confession he would be breaking that seal if he told the police. The priest could advise the penitent to turn himself in to the police, but the priest could not go to the police himself.
On the surface it appears to read that It would not be adultery if someone divorced their spouse due to infidelity and married another, however, this seems inconsistent with Catholic teaching on divorce. As with all things in Scripture there is usually more to the story. I looked up the footnotes on this and related verses in the New American Bible.
The same passage occurs also in Matthew 5:32 and the following are the footnotes on that passage:
"http://usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm#foot21":1su4xcm5 wrote:[31-32] See Deut 24:1-5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.[/quote:1su4xcm5]
It would appear that in the original context of the writing there were circumstances in the community which made exceptions to divorce allowed. However, in normal circumstances divorce is not permitted in a completely valid marriage."TCWITPAFOT1T315":14zklfon wrote:Why do Catholics pray to the dead? Don’t they know it is forbidden in the Bible?[/quote:14zklfon]
I remember encountering this one with some Evangelical friends. I don’t remember the exact verse they referenced, but it was something about not waking the dead. It was definitely out of context.Yes, you would most likely go through the RCIA process although your local parish priest will assess your specific case. You would not need to be baptized again since you were already baptized Orthodox. You might already be confirmed too. Have you already received the Eucharist?
The two still remain married until/if an annulment is granted. An annulment proves that the marriage wasn’t valid at all and is not a Catholic form of divorce.
I’ve been having a number of thoughts on this issue lately, especially in light of what has happened in New York. I am just sickened by the whole gay marriage issue and how it is being framed as “social justice” issue which will bring about “equality.”
Sometimes gay marriage is compared with interracial marriage when in reality the comparison is apples and oranges. In interracial marriage race/ethnicity/the color of skin is irrelevant to the marriage. In marriage, as it has been known for centuries, it is completely dependent upon sex (or “gender” as some call it). To be married, you must have one male and one female. It actually IS discrimination not to allow two people of different ethnicities marry, but it IS NOT discrimination not to allow to people of the same sex to marry.
Also, gay marriage has no tangible benefit to secular society. If the benefits are for individuals to have access to their partner’s healthcare and receive the same tax benefits then the gay marriage is actually a drain on society. The only reason for a secular government to grant benefits to married couples is because a marriage typically results in children. Children further society (and government’s needs) by adding taxpayers to the system. A gay marriage cannot produce people and therefore is of no advantage to civil government or society. It is purely selfish.
Hi Jonisue. My understanding is that if he is not Catholic then he is not bound by the prescriptions of the Catholic Church. However, if he were Catholic, my understanding is that marriage in a church by a priest or a deacon is required.
