|
The Phlegmatist posted:but of course Catholics are bound by Canon Law and the horrors it creates. Old Canon law is awesome. Because you know for every wacky case in there, there was a real case in history that happened, and the Church needed to discourage it from happening in the future. Pellisworth posted:many of the thread Catholics dislike V2 because it removed a lot of traditional liturgy and silly hats Not many silly hats left. Bring them back and make them mandatory. Except Birettas. Those can quietly die. No square hats on round heads please. Father, why do you have a different colored pom pom, this will only end in tears.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:were they on a bus wearing "down with cis" shirts? because if so i think i know rod dreher's tumblr idk but the reading starts about 53:20 in this episode https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-10-no-fopo-fight-the-blob-feat-dwdavison9318-51516 it's pretty golden
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Except Birettas. Those can quietly die. No square hats on round heads please. Father, why do you have a different colored pom pom, this will only end in tears. What are you talking about, birettas are awesome. Gimme all the different colours and styles and materials to denote tiny differences in order or location or rank you have, my body is ready 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:also lmao clericalism still alive and real in the catholic church i guess. gotta ask permission from the priest to marry? that's hosed, man I'm curious what kind of reasoning is used to explain the many times and places where poor Catholics tended to not get officially married.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I'm curious what kind of reasoning is used to explain the many times and places where poor Catholics tended to not get officially married. If they're living together and expect one another to be faithful, it's considered a natural marriage and presumed to be binding and legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
I would like to present this exciting section of Canon Lawquote:Can. 1130 For a grave and urgent cause, the local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated secretly. SECRET VATICAN ARCHIVES CONFIRMED actually the New Commentary on the Canon Law presents an interesting case where this can be used (because the marriage is valid, but not reported to the government.) If a widow who is eligible to be remarried has extensive pension benefits from her dead husband, in some cases she'll lose them upon entering into a civilly recognized marriage, leading to financial hardship for the new couple. Catholicism, an answer to everything contained in the old dusty books of Canon Law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Chapo Trap House is a podcast that blends (American) leftist political commentary with ironic weird-Twitter humor. That sounds awful
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:were they on a bus wearing "down with cis" shirts? because if so i think i know rod dreher's tumblr I could support a "down with Cis sort of thing" followed by a companion shirt saying "Careful now!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:That sounds awful it's actually very good if you post on SA and have left-leaning politics you're likely to enjoy it
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:it's actually very good Irony is banned You're not allowed to be ironic in this thread, it's the new rule
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Irony is banned well i had a good run, so long folks remember to watch your back down with cis bus coming for you
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
I like the marriage discussion on the last page, seems it's not so bad after all. I'm not a convert to Catholicism by the way, I'm just discovering all the bits anew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
pidan posted:I like the marriage discussion on the last page, seems it's not so bad after all. I'm not a convert to Catholicism by the way, I'm just discovering all the bits anew. I dunno, I still don't really understand "no sex prior to marriage" as a thing. It always struck me as slightly daft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I dunno, I still don't really understand "no sex prior to marriage" as a thing. It always struck me as slightly daft. it's just two people bonin'
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Old Canon law is awesome. Because you know for every wacky case in there, there was a real case in history that happened, and the Church needed to discourage it from happening in the future. The whole "is it a valid marriage" thing for converted Catholics is complicated by how the convert were married and to whom. There is a thing called the Petrine privilege that says that if you, a baptised person, marry a non-baptised person and then convert to Catholicism, you can have the marriage to the non-baptised person annulled for the good of your soul. The Pauline privilege says the same thing, but if you're both non-baptised. Then you get out into the weeds about what, precisely, qualifies as non-baptised, which is what makes canon law so exciting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:it's just two people bonin' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-8GIEQjqW8
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
raining_spiritually.fmv
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
I like clericalism and enjoy the Church's structure and authority in these matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Well, all of us resident papists in the thread can start panicking, because the blood of St. Januarius failed to liquefy this year, which apparently heralds disaster in the year to come.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Well, all of us resident papists in the thread can start panicking, because the blood of St. Januarius failed to liquefy this year, which apparently heralds disaster in the year to come. Are we going to be ok
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
https://books.google.com/books?id=QnQtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA368#v=onepage&q=monstrum&f=false Anyone want to take a crack at translating this page starting at sic etiam baptizari de monstra ex viro? The weirdest parts of Aquinism. e: I can roughly translate it but CERTAIN SOMEBODIES were bragging about their language skills in this thread so The Phlegmatist fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Well, all of us resident papists in the thread can start panicking, because the blood of St. Januarius failed to liquefy this year, which apparently heralds disaster in the year to come. I bet it's retroactive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:https://books.google.com/books?id=QnQtAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA368#v=onepage&q=monstrum&f=false "Monstrous births born of a man and a woman should be thus baptized, and if it consists of doubled principal parts of the body, it should have two souls, and it is to be baptized twice. If there is doubt as to whether it has two souls, as, for example, if some monstrous birth should have two heads with one chest, or two chests beneath the same head, baptism should be conferred twice: once absolutely, on the part in which the more complete head appears, and another time on the other part, with this condition: if you are not baptized and are capable of being baptized, I baptize you...etc. But if a monstrous birth comes to be born of a woman and a beast, it should not be baptized, because it seems certain that it is not human, since for the generation of human beings the seed of a man is in all cases required. For if a monstrous birth comes to be born of a man and a female beast, it should be baptized with this condition: if you are capable of baptism, I baptize you...etc., because it is possibly human, since there is a doubt as to whether the female seed contributes to a living fetus. In a situation of doubt as to whether the birth is from a male beast or from a man, it should be baptized with this condition: if you are human, I baptize you...etc." That's the end of the last complete sentence on the page. Thomistic anthropology is weird as hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Huh, looks like the priest in Canticle for Liebowitz missed a trick
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
what about births from a machine, like with artificially sequenced DNA or something? just use the same rule as beasts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:what about births from a machine, like with artificially sequenced DNA or something? just use the same rule as beasts? Dunno if they've come up with anything for that, but we'll probably cross that bridge when we get to it. They might wait and see if the products of gene sequencing are capable of comprehending requesting baptism: if they generally are, they'll probably be considered people who ought to be baptized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
can a "test tube baby" be a priest
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Can Boba Fett be a priest?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
I think they eliminated all irregularities of birth in the last major revision to the Code of Canon Law: I'm not seeing it listed among any impediments to ordination, and canon law is pretty clear that the only impediments are those explicitly enumerated. Given that Boba Fett is a clone, I see no reason why he'd be treated any differently than identical twins: he may share 100% of his genetic material with someone else (or even thousands of someones) but that doesn't stop him from being an individual with an individually-created soul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Bel Canto, I'm curious: what's the theological difference between saying "I baptize you" and assuming it has no effect if the person is ineligible or already baptized; and saying "If you aren't already baptized / are capable of being baptized I baptize you"? I notice that there are several formulas of baptism you called out, as well as the ones for rebaptizing converts if their original baptism is of uncertain form, that are careful to specify that they're valid only where recognized. Hmm. Is there any circumstance where you'd say over a Host "If this is not already the Body of our Lord, I consecrate it?" Like, if the priest died at an unclear point in the institution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Well, all of us resident papists in the thread can start panicking, because the blood of St. Januarius failed to liquefy this year, which apparently heralds disaster in the year to come. According to that article the blood has a pretty spotty track record. 1939 but not 1914? 1980 but no Chernobyl? Josef bugman posted:I dunno, I still don't really understand "no sex prior to marriage" as a thing. It always struck me as slightly daft. I do think that makes sense, since sex is prone to generating both feelings of attachment and actual human babies. So from a pure thought kind of perspective, only choosing to have sex in a lifelong partnership would be the best choice. Now that's not realistic for most people, and I think being as draconian about it as church rules are is stupid, but you know, the principle is sound. Re: conditional baptism, I bet this is just some doctrinal thing to make it really clear that Catholics don't do re-baptisms. I don't think it's a problem for either the priest or the person if somebody accidentally gets a normal baptism twice. I'm pretty sure that's how it's supposed to work for emergency baptisms, if the person survives a priest gets to baptize them properly later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Well, all of us resident papists in the thread can start panicking, because the blood of St. Januarius failed to liquefy this year, which apparently heralds disaster in the year to come. Are we going to be looking at the organs of cattle or flights of birds next? Let's go full on Pagan and break the back of a bull over an altar and have done with it. (meant in jest, but seriously reading the entrails shouldn't be something we are doing at this point) pidan posted:I do think that makes sense, since sex is prone to generating both feelings of attachment and actual human babies. So from a pure thought kind of perspective, only choosing to have sex in a lifelong partnership would be the best choice. Now that's not realistic for most people, and I think being as draconian about it as church rules are is stupid, but you know, the principle is sound. The principle is one of the most commonly ignored sections of church doctrine even prior to the modern day. Its like with Clerical Marriage, still can't believe Gregory gets to be called "The Great" after he institutes that, it turns nigh on everyone into a hypocrite. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Are we going to be looking at the organs of cattle or flights of birds next? Let's go full on Pagan and break the back of a bull over an altar and have done with it. (meant in jest, but seriously reading the entrails shouldn't be something we are doing at this point)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:hi, my name is hegel and i look at omens, ama If God does exist and have a plan why would he only make some people aware of it? Why hide the plan in the first place? Why only provide hints to it instead of just writing it in 40 ft tall lettering as opposed to going "Well I'll make the bird entrails fall a different way, thus meaning the battle will be lost". Also, if God is doing all this, doesn't that interfere with the whole "free will" defence of the problem of evil? I mean I can understand wanting to make sense of the world through augury and it's a natural human impulse to seek meaning in vague "signs", but it's not something that a divine being would use to communicate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
pidan posted:I like the marriage discussion on the last page, seems it's not so bad after all. I'm not a convert to Catholicism by the way, I'm just discovering all the bits anew. I also liked it. Who you love is about as personal as a relationship gets. I understand better why it's been a human spiritual concern then and now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Well, reading entrails and other stuff like that is seen as a supetstition since it's a pratice aimed at coaxing omens and answers. Stuff happening to relics and sainted remains don't really require you do anything to make those aigns happen (to the great relief of gut-having birds everywhere). Plus, flaming letters in the sky are kind of really... unsubtle? Meanwhile, miraculous relics still require a degree of faith and allow for free will since they might be fortelling of things that you may or may not be able to reverse (climate change disasters, mt saint helen exploding, etc), but you can at least be vaguelly prepare fpr it. You might interpret it as a call to action and be vigilant dangerous stuff and how to reverse it if possible. And if you die, well, then your suffering was minusculate in comparison to the eternal reward that awaits after your passing. That doesn't mean that you should actively prevent FEMA support or jump into a tsunami wave, tho. Or something like that. On a tangential matter, I do believe that panicking and losing poo poo every time when ebola, SARS or bird flu rears their head is the responsible thing to do. It's dangerous to go "naw, we'll be fine, nothing happened the previous times" as maybe it was the active response that courtailed the spread of the new plagues. However, it probably also explains how people who believe in FEMA death camps continue to be fruitcakes. "Well of course Obamer didn't send us to death camps: he wanted to, but our vigilance, lovely websites and crazy youtube videos stopped him!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, reading entrails and other stuff like that is seen as a supetstition since it's a pratice aimed at coaxing omens and answers. Stuff happening to relics and sainted remains don't really require you do anything to make those aigns happen (to the great relief of gut-having birds everywhere). I would bet drachma that the ancient Greeks did something similar with other vessels. "Oooh the sacred bull is having blood leak from this side of it. We did not stab it, but its still in pain and that means we can learn from it!" Did God send those readings? Good. If you want to say something, loving say it. Don't go "well we could half rear end our signs of forthcoming doom". How on earth can you, as an individual, prepare for the black death? Or for the Hunnic invasions? Or World War Two? Being vigilant about dangerous stuff has better modelling already than through sainted relics. Heck if you want to go the whole hog, why doesn't God interfere in peoples predictive abilities anyway? I have always disliked that idea of heaven. "Suffer, because eventually it will work out alright" isn't something one should be saying to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:If God does exist and have a plan why would he only make some people aware of it? Why hide the plan in the first place? Why only provide hints to it instead of just writing it in 40 ft tall lettering as opposed to going "Well I'll make the bird entrails fall a different way, thus meaning the battle will be lost". Also, if God is doing all this, doesn't that interfere with the whole "free will" defence of the problem of evil? I like your questions, and I am glad you're enjoying Man's Search for Meaning. I think you will also enjoy its sequel, Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning, where Frankl discusses how meaning in individuals might interconnect to My feeling is that answers about God's nature or motives are most meaningfully answered inwardly, from within yourself. It's been my experience that God only makes those kinds of interferences in stories. The historicity of those stories is such a hot topic, people are literally burned alive over it. For an experience of God closer to what I've witnessed in my days, I like to borrow a metaphor used in the new Westworld (which we will be discussing like The Man Who Was Thursday and Deus Ex some day).  This is Michaelangelo's fresco of the Creation of Adam. Centuries after he painted it, a scientist pointed out that the shape around God resembles the human brain. An interpretation of that has been that God is a creation of the human mind. I understand that, but I also argue that God exists in the mind, and is how most people will have access to divinity. It will be an inward journey, the way Frankl talks about finding meaning, but which also concerns that higher level of ultimate meaning. Everything seems to come down to the choices we make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:If God does exist and have a plan... Why hide the plan in the first place? Hi my name is Thirteen Orphans and the last time God revealed God's plan to me I was probably just having a mental health episode. Shoot, are you familiar with classical Ignation discernment? It sure does feel like God's trying to keep God's plans secret.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 10:06
|
|
