Can Church discipline be wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter victus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

victus

Guest
If church discipline can change, then could what has been changed of the discipline in the past be wrong or displeasing to God? Such as, is the Church wrong for changing the discipline in the west in regards to not allowing married men to the preisthood? Or allowing communion to be received in the hand? Or woman not having to wear veils in the Church? Can some of these examples of Church discipline be wrong?
 
victus said:
If church discipline can change, then could what has been changed of the discipline in the past be wrong or displeasing to God? Such as, is the Church wrong for changing the discipline in the west in regards to not allowing married men to the preisthood? Or allowing communion to be received in the hand? Or woman not having to wear veils in the Church? Can some of these examples of Church discipline be wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes, Church discipline can be unwise.

There is a difference between an unwise law and one that the authority does not have the moral right to make. Communion in the hand is in my opinion extremely unwise, but there is no statement from God saying that laypeople may not touch the host with their hands.
 
victus said:
If church discipline can change, then could what has been changed of the discipline in the past be wrong or displeasing to God? Such as, is the Church wrong for changing the discipline in the west in regards to not allowing married men to the preisthood? Or allowing communion to be received in the hand? Or woman not having to wear veils in the Church? Can some of these examples of Church discipline be wrong?
Click to expand...
Sure they could be, their not infallible doctrines, they are manmade laws. They are what humans thought was best at the time. By the way the Church in the west actually does allow Married men to enter the Priesthood.
 
not wrong in the moral sense, but imprudent, unpastoral, unwise, or simply not relevant or necessary in the current culture, which is why disciplines can change.

what cannot change, ever, is the underlying doctrine behind the discipline, even though the discipline can change as understanding of the doctrine evolves–that is why we can never have women priests, but married priests are a possibility
 
victus said:
If church discipline can change, then could what has been changed of the discipline in the past be wrong or displeasing to God? Such as, is the Church wrong for changing the discipline in the west in regards to not allowing married men to the preisthood? Or allowing communion to be received in the hand? Or woman not having to wear veils in the Church? Can some of these examples of Church discipline be wrong?
Click to expand...
I cannot see how it can ever be in error as in contrary to the faith?
 
fix said:
I cannot see how it can ever be in error as in contrary to the faith?
Click to expand...
I don’t either, I am asking these questions because someone told me that it could be wrong. I don’t think he was asking all these questions that well to himself.
 
victus said:
I don’t either, I am asking these questions because someone told me that it could be wrong. I don’t think he was asking all these questions that well to himself.
Click to expand...
The link in the post to the old CE says it pretty well I think.
 
victus said:
In a few instances only because of conversions from where they were a pastor before in their denomination.
Click to expand...
No, I meant, canon law currently does not prohibit a Married man form being Ordained. It only prohibits an Ordained man from entering into Marriage.
 
This basically comes down to whether church discipline can be just unwise or if it can be truely wrong.

It can never be wrong, but it can be unwise. Church discipline changes so that the Church may adapt to the issues facing it. So yes unwise choices may be made. Such as no longer requiring head coverings, or like communion in the hand. Or one that seems to be particularly unwise today is just the fact that we no longer kneel for communion.

But recieving communion only in the form of the Body may no longer be a wise discipline (or it may be more necessary then ever). This discipline was started to combat the heresy that you had to recieve both Species to recieve the nature of God, thus negating the real presence in either one of the species individually.
 
zagjames said:
This basically comes down to whether church discipline can be just unwise or if it can be truely wrong.

It can never be wrong, but it can be unwise. Church discipline changes so that the Church may adapt to the issues facing it. So yes unwise choices may be made. Such as no longer requiring head coverings, or like communion in the hand. Or one that seems to be particularly unwise today is just the fact that we no longer kneel for communion.

But recieving communion only in the form of the Body may no longer be a wise discipline (or it may be more necessary then ever). This discipline was started to combat the heresy that you had to recieve both Species to recieve the nature of God, thus negating the real presence in either one of the species individually.
Click to expand...
Wrong has degrees, depending on who’s standard, under what conditions? It’s not an absolute.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
No, I meant, canon law currently does not prohibit a Married man form being Ordained. It only prohibits an Ordained man from entering into Marriage.
Click to expand...
Actually the Code of Canon Law does prohibit a married man from being ordained to the priesthood.

Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

1° a man who has a wife, unless he is lawfully destined for the permanent diaconate;

This is why all those converts who have been ordained in the Latin Church must have the approval of the Pope as he is the only one that can dispense from this Law.

As for the second. I believe it is also theological why an ordained man can not enter into marriage legally. So it is not only a matter of discipline.

A secular priest enters into a marriage illicitly if he attempts a marriage after he is ordained without being release from his promises by Rome. A religious who attempts this enters into not only an illicit marriage but an invalid one also because of the vows taken.

If you can’t tell, we just had our Vows classes at the internovitiate class I am attending.
 
Yes, it can be unwise, unhelpful etc. but as far as I understand it, due to negative infallibility, it can’t teach error and be morally wrong.
So let’s take the example of communion in hand.

I strongly believe this this is something extremely bad for the Church and that is has some severe effect on our faith. But I can’t say that it is morally wrong to take communion in hand because She allows it. Like She can’t say that we should kill our first-borne child and make it into the disciple - this is objectively wrong and it would oppose the idea of infallibility of the Church.
**
(Please correct me here if I’m wrong.) **
 
ByzCath said:
Actually the Code of Canon Law does prohibit a married man from being ordained to the priesthood.

Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

1° a man who has a wife, unless he is lawfully destined for the permanent diaconate;

This is why all those converts who have been ordained in the Latin Church must have the approval of the Pope as he is the only one that can dispense from this Law.

As for the second. I believe it is also theological why an ordained man can not enter into marriage legally. So it is not only a matter of discipline.

A secular priest enters into a marriage illicitly if he attempts a marriage after he is ordained without being release from his promises by Rome. A religious who attempts this enters into not only an illicit marriage but an invalid one also because of the vows taken.

If you can’t tell, we just had our Vows classes at the internovitiate class I am attending.
Click to expand...
Ok, I’ll stand corrected.

Can. 1087 Those who are in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.
Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:
1° a man who has a wife, unless he is lawfully destined for the permanent diaconate;

I wonder what effect the difference in the wording has?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top