Contemporary music at mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter whyeyeman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That comment was directed to the traditionalists in the thread – wasn’t it.
A temporal authority must ultimately have recourse to physical punishment, else it isn’t really a temporal authority. If trads ‘put their money where their mouth is’ then it’s clear the husband has the right to strike his wife, again, assuming commensurability to the offence. It is revolutionary and anarchical to deny that he has this right and can exercise it in justice.
Click to expand...
 
No, you aren´t. If you want to go all 15th century, please take off the internet and learn a job. Don´t forget your herbs against yersinia pestis.
 
It does change look at the maybe having “married Priests” in other countries. Weird but you never know with Pope.
 
Xantippe said:
Or to put it differently, nobody who has been happily married for any length of time is interested in the thoughts of teenage boys (or teenage girls) on marriage.
Click to expand...
What thoughts were expressed that are rightly dismissed due to age? If a teenager said to his parents who plan to divorce that marriage is an indissoluble union they’d probably not be interested in those thoughts. But the opinion would be true.
 
exnihilo said:
What thoughts were expressed that are rightly dismissed due to age? If a teenager said to his parents who plan to divorce that marriage is an indissoluble union they’d probably not be interested in those thoughts. But the opinion would be true.
Click to expand...
You’ll notice that I said “happily married.”

Reasonably happily married people are (understandably) not interested in being told about marriage by teenagers.
 
Development of doctrine does not mean doctrines Change. It means that things are expanded upon and made clearer. What was true 500 years ago is true today and will be true forever.
 
OK. I am now making this comment, if liberals put their money where their mouth isn’t they’d support clown masses. Now can I say all liberals support clown masses? No, I can’t. Nor can you say all traditionalist support beating their wives.
 
Xantippe said:
40.png
exnihilo:
What thoughts were expressed that are rightly dismissed due to age? If a teenager said to his parents who plan to divorce that marriage is an indissoluble union they’d probably not be interested in those thoughts. But the opinion would be true.
Click to expand...
You’ll notice that I said “happily married.”

Reasonably happily married people are (understandably) not interested in being told about marriage by teenagers.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
OK, well what specific thoughts on marriage are you saying a teenager can’t have and express to someone who has a happy marriage?
 
Oh yes. Clearly reasoned logic doesn’t apply simply because someone happens to have existed for less time than someone else.
 
exnihilo said:
OK, well what specific thoughts on marriage are you saying a teenager can’t have and express to someone who has a happy marriage?
Click to expand...
I’m just saying that they don’t bring anything to the table.

I am not interested in getting marriage pointers from anybody who lacks any of the following qualifications: a) 10+ (and ideally 15+) years happily married b) ordained clergy or c) successful professional marriage counselor.
 
This is from a different traditionalist site: And yea – that “belief” is circulating.
As far as I can tell, my understanding of the marital relationship and authority is the one that existed up until the some time in the last century. I find it unlikely that our ancestors were perverted and only the last few generations are enlightened, not when there are so many things that modern people are wrong about.

Authority can be enforced by imposing fines, removing privileges, or assigning punishment tasks. But it seems to me that the modern understanding of marriage would not allow any of these things. People object to any sort of punishment coming from a husband, not just corporal. They seem to want the husband’s authority to be unenforceable and that makes me question how serious we are about believing in the husband’s authority.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The objective fact in the case of usury is that: usury is wrong. The church teaching on how to apply this teaching in different economies can be changed. This has nothing to do with the doctrine itself…
 
No need to discuss this …things in two threads, whyeyeman.
 
Last edited:
Usury is lending at excessive interest. In an age when most of the world lived in poverty, and modern banking had not developed, ‘excessive’ meant lending at any interest rate whatsoever.

However, in modern times, people are richer and we have regulated and established banking system. In this context, lending at, say, 1% interest is not excessive.

The absolute truth still remains: usury, that is, lending at excessive rates of interest, is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Usury means lending at excessive interest. Please show me where in the bull it says otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top