Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

  • Thread starter Thread starter anrmenchaca47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Elf01:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Indissoluble… unless they qualify for the Petrine or Pauline Privileges, right? So not completely indissoluble.
Click to expand...
The privileges apply to non sacramental marriages. A sacramental marriage (what God has joined) is indissoluble.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that this point in Christian history, I’d argue the vast majority marriages are not strictly sacramental, given the success of other forms of Christianity in the west - particularly the US.
Click to expand...
Most Protestant sects still practice Baptism. Sacramental marriages exist between any two baptized people. Since, at least for now, the majority of people in the US remain baptized, their marriages would be sacramental.

Now, my wife is unbaptized, so our marriage is not yet Sacramental. However, since I am baptized, and was at the point of our marriage, I would not qualify for the Pauline Privileged.
 
Last edited:
I understand the difficulties of being in a poor Parish since I attend one.

The fact is that having government programs are not the solution
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Most Protestant sects still practice Baptism. Sacramental marriages exist between any two baptized people. Since, at least for now, the majority of people in the US remain baptized, their marriages would be sacramental.

Now, my wife is unbaptized, so our marriage is not yet Sacramental. However, since I am baptized, and was at the point of our marriage, I would not qualify for the Pauline Privileged.
Click to expand...
Cool.

Let’s start with this;
Petrine privilege, also known as the privilege of the faith or favour of the faith, is a ground recognised in Catholic canon law allowing for dissolution by the Pope of a valid natural marriage of baptized persons or between a baptised and a non-baptised person
Click to expand...
So the marriage is STILL dissoluble by the Church, just using a different privilege.

So much for “indissolubility”, right? Now perhaps if they’re both validly baptized and married in the Catholic Church… But as I said - rare situation these days in the US.

Moreover - and this is important - These specifications about whether the marriage is sacramental or whether they’ve been baptized is still absent from Christ’s passages in the gospels concerning marriage - thus they are additions.

I think I can pretty well rest my case here… 🙂
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure where you’re getting that definition from:

The Pauline Privilege is covered under Canon 1143:
Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.
§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without afront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to dissolve a marriage between baptized persons. The privileged is only enacted in cases where both parties were married unbaptized, one is baptized, and the other is vehemently opposed to the faith and refuses to even live with the believer. This page discusses it in more detail:

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/04/04/what-is-the-pauline-privilege/

As I said above, I don’t know enough to address this on a theological level, however, I do know that the strict restrictions and requirements stands in stark contrast to the Orthodox views on divorce and remarriage, which is fairly open ended, at least for the first divorce.

You also have to consider the cultural context when this was written. In this era, the Pagans had an incredibly warped and malformed understanding of the nature of marriage, so much so that it could be said that they were not capable of forming a valid natural marriage. You might argue that the same could be said for certain parts of society today, but that is not something you can take for granted given the Christian origins of modern culture (as well as their influence on other non-Christian cultures).

I have to head out for the day, so I won’t be able to respond again. It’s been fun having this discussion with you, and has forced me to look into a topic I was previously mostly unfamiliar with. God bless!
 
Last edited:
I would add that God does not join the couple in a non sacramental marriage.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I’m not sure where you’re getting that definition from:

The Pauline Privilege is covered under Canon 1143:
It is not possible to dissolve a marriage between baptized persons.
Click to expand...
Ok, so then your counter argument is, essentially that the Petrine Privilege doesn’t actually exist and then you further attempt to explain how marriages dissolved via Pauline Privilege don’t conflict with the notion of marital indissolubility.

Fair enough.

But what’s occurred in this subject is that you started off by saying that marriage is indissoluble per Christ. But by Paul (and Peter’s) additions, it actually is in some instances.
And by other, later additions, it’s “clarified” be being dependent on certain statuses that pertain to baptism and sacramentality.
And by other additions, it’s also “clarified” as being dependent on whether the marriage was actually technically valid in the first place, regardless of issues like marital duration or whether the couple mutually felt they were married at some point.

Whether those developments “jive” with “marriage is indissoluble per Christ” is something I’ll leave you to work out. 🙂 But it makes me think of a kitten playing with yarn, to be frank.

I’m just saying the Orthodox solution to the problem might be better and more true. It certainly requires less canonical gymnastics.

Thanks for the chat, it was fun! Enjoy your day.
 
Last edited:
I agree that this is predominantly a Western problem, we seem to have discarded any sense of identity allegiances here so why wouldn’t that include the Church too.
I am also aware of Pope Francis being misquoted but it doesn’t matter because he has done nothing to fix the situation by making corrections and resulting in the confusion of billions. I am also not basing all of my conclusions on him alone, but the Filioque, Imaculate Conception, Purgatory, Church structure and many other things I was once so certain about and yes I WANT to believe in them.
How the Church views other religions, especially other Christian denominations, Judaism and Islam has also no bearing in history.

Please, I never said that I hated the Church, I want more than anything to stay but I see little reason to. If I am wrong I pray God to lead me to His path and I sincerely mean that.
 
anrmenchaca47 said:
What is the difference between those being social justice warriors and what the Cathecism teaches in social justice? Thanks
Click to expand...
One must understand the teachings of ‘subsidiarity’

SJW’s want the state to be authoritarian and fix everything while the Church expects each of us to take action in our own neighborhood.
 
Go out to you tube and search snowflakes and social justice warriors. Watch the behavior of the SJW.

You will find that many who have replied to your question that far right used the term SJW simply as a way to insult those who only disagree with the rights position are mentally perjuring themselves.

Then watch videos on church social justice.

Here is where the divide really shows. Most conservatives catholic agree with Catholic teachings. Where this disagreement happen is what ways and steps should be taken to implement those teachings.
 
That’s a valid point but one must also consider that when seeking the lowest possible layer of government, that implicitly admits that there are higher layers of government which necessitates that they have a function as well.

Something exists at the top. And population drives government growth.
 
Subsidiarity teaches dealing with the problem at the lowest possible level of Govt.
SJW’s tend to push their agenda from the top down, not the bottom up.
 
Vonsalza said:
Maybe. But the tops got to do something…
Click to expand...
What is your point?
I was illustrating the difference between the two terms, never suggested different levels didn’t have a role to play, just where the focus was or should be. You seem to accept what I said but also defending SJWs
 
I’m not defending anything I’m merely accepting the fact that the federal government has a role to play.

The power of all government grows with population. It’s a necessity.
 
So how do you answer the OP?
I gave it my best shot, and I never said Feds didn’t have a role, just that they shouldn’t be the focus.
 
And I think in a lot of cases they should be. For example, should we have Universal Health Care in just Kentucky or just New York? No. We should have it nation-wide. Ergo, it’s best treated as federal issue because it’s a nation-wide concern; likely authorised by the Commerce Clause.
 
Last edited:
Whatever makes it easier to fallaciously dismiss those who disagree with you…
 
And you are ignoring Church teachings on subsidiarity, going straight for the top down solution you think is right and should be mandated from above.

I don’t agree with universal healthcare the way it has been proposed by the left.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top