Catholic wearing yarmulke at Jewish wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdsavino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Before I clarify, I’m gonna need to have you answer three questions:
  1. Was the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council an orthodox, binding, legitimate Ecumenical Council of Holy Mother Church?
  2. Is the current 266th Roman Pontiff Pope Francis the lawful successor to St. Peter and the legitimate Pope of Rome?
  3. Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as promulgated by our Holy Father Blessed Pope Paul VI a valid, legitimate, lawful, and holy form of the Roman Mass?
Please, yes or no answers only.
 
I’m sorry. I’ll have to ask you to reasses your words in light of Catholic teaching.
First:
“It doesn’t matter what the Church taught decades or centuries ago if it’s been superseded in modern times.”
-This suggests the Church is not immutable and also should change in correlation to modern times. This is modernism and should be rejected.

“It doesn’t matter the Church used to bind faithful women to cover their heads at Mass - the Church has now loosed women from this discipline”
-The Church never ‘bound’ this, it encouraged it and STILL ENCOURAGES it in light of her Sacred Tradition.

“It doesn’t matter the Church used to bind the faithful in America to abstain from fish on Fridays - the Church has now loosed the faithful from this discipline.”
-The Friday Penance is STILL in place, but can be replaced with other reparation prayers such as the Our Father.

“It doesn’t matter the Church used to bind the faithful from entering non-Catholic places of worship - the Church has loosed this discipline.”
-The Church never loosed, the Churches administration just doesn’t correct anyone on this topic, like they don’t with a majority of topics.

Lastly, and most importantly, I point out your plethora of “It doesn’t matter”s. This shows a grave indifferentism to the roots of the Church. You really should consult a spiritual director about this problem. I promised to pray for you, and I shall do such! I kindly ask that you also pray for me.
 
Hahaha you actually think I’m a sspxie or a sedevacantism because I call out your modernistic tendencies? Thats a very rude thing to do! Especially when it is not the topic of our debate. But anyway, I will oblige to satiate your curiosities.
Yes/ Yes/ Yes
Are you happy? Might I also remind you that the actions of the Holy Father do not exercise his infallibility. Just in case you might bring that up.
 
You’re wrong about the Church not binding women covering their heads.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law bound women to cover their heads.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law loosed women from covering their heads.
 
bishops, cardinals, and the pope wear those caps, although they may be called something else
 
And also, if you accept the teachings of VII, why do you insist on contradicting them in your public teachings?
 
I’m not contradicting anything, unless you are suggesting the Popes I quote contradict Vatican II. Thatd be pretty strange, huh? Anyway, John Paul’s law didn’t ‘loose’ anything. In fact, the subject was omitted.
 
Ask yourself something.

Why did everyone who replied, essentially reply with the same thing. Then all of a sudden you come along and contradict them all. Was it because you were the only one teaching Catholic truth?

Or maybe, is it more likely that you yourself are out of line with Catholic discipline, and now instead of reconciling yourself to what the Church teaches, you button down and try to defend the indefensible?
 
I must, as a Catholic, ask myself that everyday! Reasonably speaking, none of these people cited anything, with the exception of you(Congratulations to you, by the way, for that). And I’m unsure what you mean in your second paragraph. It’s quite ambiguous, and I don’t find it has to do with the topic. And I don’t speak Catholic truth. In fact, I barely know truth. However, what I do know is those who knew the truth, which is why I’ve relied on citations rather than my own explanations. This debate has really wearied me. I think the Devil might be trying to get to me. I’m going to get offline now since this is going nowhere. Forget not to pray for me!
 
A Catholic wearing a Yarmulke in a Synagogue…

Unspeakable horror… the horror… dear God the HORROR!!(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
PiusOfTheCross said:
Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Click to expand...
It’s important to note that the Code of 1917 was not 1800+ years old. Canon Law can be dispensed by competent Ordinaries, and can be revised via the one whom is the Successor of Cephas. When it is revised, we are no longer bound by the previous codes, but rather we are now bound by the new one - the new Code is now the law.

Which brings us to:
PiusOfTheCross said:
I’m not familiar with it, but Ill be sure to look it up:)
Click to expand...
You’ve had a bit of time to look this up. Please provide the relevant section from the Code of 1983.
 
And I already stated it after I typed that. It’s omitted. It’s also important to note that, say, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not 1800+ years old, however it was the consensus of the Church since the beginning, it was just never formally declared. Nevertheless, the prohibition of entrance into non-Catholic places of worship was defined multiple times throughout Church history, for example, at the Council of Trent. I didn’t feel it necessary, though, to cite them because one is enough. Finally, it is not true that we just ignore past canon laws, and also, it is not our sole rule for Christian practice. I most definetely agree that the new Canon Law is the law, just not the law in its entirely. You can ask any Canonist this. In Rome, they study all Canon Law, not just that promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II.
 
Sorry, for some reason it didn’t tag you. The above post was meant for you!
 
PiusOfTheCross said:
And I already stated it after I typed that. It’s omitted.
Click to expand...
Omitted? Or perhaps the Successor of Cephas was guided by the Holy Spirit to determine that the old Canon Law was no longer applicable, and instead that guidelines/regulations could be leveraged - rather than binding laws which could regardless be dispensed by competent Ordinaries?
PiusOfTheCross said:
It’s also important to note that, say, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not 1800+ years old, however it was the consensus of the Church since the beginning, it was just never formally declared.
Click to expand...
A poor example, one should never equate dogma with a discipline or a practice, because the latter can (and has) changed. A better comparable could things like clerical celibacy or not eating meat on Fridays.
PiusOfTheCross said:
Nevertheless, the prohibition of entrance into non-Catholic places of worship was defined multiple times throughout Church history, for example, at the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
Please quote Trent. Further, point to me where this is a dogmatic principle, not a discipline/practice.
PiusOfTheCross said:
Finally, it is not true that we just ignore past canon laws
Click to expand...
We do not. However if there is a direct conflict between laws, the newer law wins. Further, the Successor of Cephas retains the right to bind and loose Canon Law. And with that in mind, we need to look at documents like this, especially as it pertains to guidelines/regulations I mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
It might be the opposite. The Reform might ask you to wear a yarmulke, but the Orthodox not, because that is usually reserved for Jews (although I would have to check on that). OTOH, many Reform themselves do not wear a kippa in the synagogue, although that has been changing in recent years. I wonder what the Conservative would do in this case?!
 
Nay, it the example of the Dogma perfectly illustrates my point; That the exhibition was present for the entire history of the Church, and a written statement is not needed, which happened with the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception(I am not equating the theological importances of disciplines and statements of Dogma).
Furthermore, I highly doubt that the Holy Ghost inspired the Successor of St. Peter to purposely omit the tradition of the veil in order to abolish it. John Paul was under lots of pressure in his Papacy(which, consequently, stopped him from consecrating Russia).
I don’t have the quote of Trent, but here are three Councils until I find it:
“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.” (3rd Council of Constantinople)
“And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.” (5th Lateran Council)
“One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman, let him be excommunicated.” (Council of Carthage)
Now obviously, by virtue of the ecumenical council, a disciplinary distinction isn’t needed.
 
All of those quotes are based upon the same Theology. The Catholic is not to take part in the religious services of others. The only exception is to pray with them that they are united into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top