Catholic wearing yarmulke at Jewish wedding

[Melchior_1]

Now obviously, by virtue of the ecumenical council, a disciplinary distinction isn’t needed.

I am left to presume that, based on what you just said; you agree that everything contained within Ecumenical Council called “Vatican II”, and that everything it says (including Unitatis Redintegratio, Lumen Gentium, and Nostra Aetate) is 100% binding on the entirety of the Catholic faithful, based on your original statement.

Furthermore, you seem to be operating under the pretense that Ecumenical Councils are doctrinal and/or dogmatic only, but that is not the case . For example, celibacy has been mentioned in a few Councils, yet that is not dogmatic in the least.

John Paul was under lots of pressure in his Papacy(which, consequently, stopped him from consecrating Russia)

I bolded this for emphasis. Thank you for tipping your hand here. Although even here you are incorrect; the man who faced down Communists, survived an assassination attempt and forgave the assassin in person, continued to proclaim the message first delivered by the prophet Blessed Pope Paul VI (yes, I said prophet. If disagree, you’ll need to catch these hands) by preaching on sexual ethics - which in turn dovetails to one of his premier works, the incredibly counter-cultural Theology of the Body. And of course, dying with true dignity.

Not consecrating Russia due to “pressure”? Please. You would have more credibility if you said that we all needed to learn Pig Latin. And besides, Sr. Lucia declared the consecration was fulfilled in the March 25, 1984 consecration.

 

[PiusOfTheCross]

Ah, you have finally made clear why you continue to antagonize. Yes, I accept Vatican II, and I accept Paul VI as a legitimate Pope(I know, quite a surprise, right?). I reject him as a prophet though. I’m sorry you feel the need to antagonize me, with the use of ad hominem, because of your false presumption that I am in some way affiliated with the SSPX or the sedevacantist cult. Anywho, there are reasons to believe that Sr. Lucia did not truly say that, according to the late Fr. Gabriele Amorth. I’d agree with this because John Paul II consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart with an allusion to Russia, in the very same way that Pius XII did so. His pressure was the Russian Patriarchs whom he(rightly so) desired to reincorporate into the Church. I’m glad for friendly debate, but please refrain from the silly comments! They offend God most of all.

 

[PiusOfTheCross]

By silly comments, I mean the unholy antagonizements. They dissipate the spirit of Christian discussion.

 

[PJM]

Hmmmm,

Didn’t JESUS tell us Salvation is “FROM the Jews?”

Luke.19: [9] And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.

John.4: [22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

So NO, I don’t see any issues here.

GB YOU!

PJM

 

[StGerardMajella]

If you agree to attend a Jewish wedding, and every male is wearing a kippah, and you refuse to do so, this would be disrespectful.

And yes, the kippah has a long and ancient tradition. Head coverings in general as a sign of piety date back to biblical times. For pious Jews, the wearing of the kippah can have multiple meanings and rationale, the first of which is a sign of reverence, honor, and respect for the Creator, as well as solidarity with the Jewish community, among others.

Instead of showing arrogance, and airs of superiority, we might try to show some humility and humble gratitude towards our Jewish brethren rather than antagonism. That will go far further towards building bridges and encouraging dialogue than focusing on differences. We have more in common with our Jewish brothers and sisters than we do differences.

 

[Melchior_1]

Ah, you have finally made clear why you continue to antagonize.

I’m not antagonizing at all.

What I have done is point out that what you are saying does not square away with the current Code of Canon Law, nor does it align with current directives from Rome. And even if the Code of 1917 does apply, the Successor of Cephas has the ability to dispense or override it.

I also pointed out that what was discussed at previous Councils was still regarding a discipline, and that this is not a doctrinal or dogmatic issue. And that if you did treat everything said at a Council as dogmatic, then the Vatican II documents I posted should be adhered to.

You didn’t address any of those or my other points at all. Instead, you said I used “ad hominem” and ignored what I said. Just because you think something is an ad hominem doesn’t make it so.

So please, respond what I actually said as opposed to what you think I said.

I reject him as a prophet though.

I encourage you to reflect on the words of Humanae Vitae , and the words given by the Lawyer turned Prophet.

 

[PiusOfTheCross]

I’m not addressing your other points because they have not to do with the thread, you’ve started arguing about them out of the blue.
As for those references of the councils, it is not a discipline. Disciplines are never attached with a penalty. To know that something applies to faith and morals, it will either be attached with an excommunication, anathema, or some other form of penalty when it is broken or spoken out against.

And why do you keep bringing up Bl. Paul?

 

[Melchior_1]

They’re relevant to what you have said previously.

Disciplines are never attached with a penalty.

Not quite. To name a couple of them, eating meat on Fridays used to be a mortal sin, so there was a penalty attached to that. There’s certainly canonical penalties if a non-married priest isn’t celibate (as opposed to us non-ordained folks, where if we fornicate it’s a sin, but there may not be canonical penalties attached).

At this point, I don’t think either of us will convince the other, so it’s probably best to move on. I’ll say this one last thing; the reality is that the Successor of Cephas and competent authorities have authorized that in situations like the original poster’s, he can attend a Jewish wedding. And because he can attend it, he should respect their customs that don’t conflict with the Catholic faith. Like say, wearing a hat,

 

[PiusOfTheCross]

I agree. We should both dust our feet.