What change is permit

  • Thread starter Thread starter ADiosgracias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ADiosgracias

Guest
Many things that were previously sin, now are not. (communion without having made fasting two hours before, going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday, communión on hand … How to know what would be allowed to change and what would not. What we now think it is a sin perhap in the future it will not.
 
Some things can be considered sins at certain points in history and/or for certain people and not others, and still others are always and everywhere sins (assuming, of course, the requirements for sin are met).

I don’t know the proper terminology for this, so I will be descriptive rather than prescriptive:

Certain things can be sins for certain people. One example is the Pontifical Secret. A common use of this is when priests are notified that they will become bishops; when this happen, the Nuncio of the country tells the man, often via phone, and he is held under the strictest confidentiality not to tell anyone under the direct authority of the Pope. This only binds to the people who know, and the people who know are the ones who have to know. There are other examples of when the Pontifical Secret is used. This is an exercise of legitimate Papal authority even though “Pontifical Secret” is not explicitly contained within the Bible or Tradition as such.

Certain things are sinful in some periods and not others. For example, the Communion fast until recently in Church history used to be significantly longer than it is now, such that it actually made a difference in communicants’ conscious lives in that they had to actively make decisions about when to stop eating; now, it is very easy for many people to eat breakfast soon before going to Mass and the fast will not be broken. No longer is it a sin to eat after midnight, or more recently three hours before Mass begins, and receive Communion.

Certain things are commanded by God in some unspecific practical form which the Church nevertheless applies certain practical forms to satisfy God’s commands. The obvious example is fasting, to satisfy God’s command to do penance: the Church commands that we fast on Fridays during Lent, and all other Fridays in the year or, instead of in the latter case, to substitute something in its place. Even though God didn’t tell us, “Fast on Fridays,” He did tell us, “Do penance,” and the Church has grown a tradition, and now a law, of fasting on Fridays to meet the bare minimum of this divine command.

Still other things are always sinful, as long as the requirements for sin are met: essentially anything that violates a Commandment.
 
Many things that were previously sin, now are not. (communion without having made fasting two hours before, going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday, communión on hand … How to know what would be allowed to change and what would not. What we now think it is a sin perhap in the future it will not.
You are talking about Church disciplinary laws. These are not part of the Natural Moral Law or Doctrines of the Faith. Disciplinary laws can always change. Many of them are left up the local Bishop.

Linus2nd
 
You are talking about Church disciplinary laws. These are not part of the Natural Moral Law or Doctrines of the Faith. Disciplinary laws can always change. Many of them are left up the local Bishop.

Linus2nd
Are marriage laws disciplinary? Charlemagne, for example, had more than one wife and concubines and the Church had not yet defined sacramental marriage as it now does.
 
Are marriage laws disciplinary? Charlemagne, for example, had more than one wife and concubines and the Church had not yet defined sacramental marriage as it now does.
Some aspects of marriage laws are disciplinary, but not all. For example, the Church could not allow same-sex marriage because that would be against natural law. She could however change the rules for handling disparity of cult.
 
Some aspects of marriage laws are disciplinary, but not all. For example, the Church could not allow same-sex marriage because that would be against natural law. She could however change the rules for handling disparity of cult.
Multiple wives doesn’t violate natural law and so it was at one time acceptable according to the Church… ? We’re not describing a marriage between one baptized Catholic and a spouse who isn’t baptized. And what of adultery? How was that ever permissible?
 
Multiple wives doesn’t violate natural law and so it was at one time acceptable according to the Church… ? We’re not describing a marriage between one baptized Catholic and a spouse who isn’t baptized. And what of adultery? How was that ever permissible?
Polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament so it is hard to make a case that it violates natural law. I am not aware of anyone saying that adultery was ever permissible.
 
Polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament so it is hard to make a case that it violates natural law. I am not aware of anyone saying that adultery was ever permissible.
I’m not either. But I haven’t read anything that hints at Charlemagne being reprimanded for having multiple mistresses (and children by them).
 
I’m not either. But I haven’t read anything that hints at Charlemagne being reprimanded for having multiple mistresses (and children by them).
There is a difference between not having a law and not enforcing a law.
 
Yes. It just seems…weird that at one time, polygamists had a free pass in the Church.
The OP was asking about rules being changed. I think this was a situation of rules being ignored. It is not really relevant to the question.
 
The OP was asking about rules being changed. I think this was a situation of rules being ignored. It is not really relevant to the question.
At most, this actually seems like rules at one time not existing. In any case, back to the OP’s question.
 
The action of eating meat on Fridays was a sin not because eating meat is wrong but because you were disobeying the law. It was the sin of disobedience, not the sin of eating meat.
 
Multiple wives doesn’t violate natural law and so it was at one time acceptable according to the Church… ?
Charlemagne did not have “multiple wives,” as in polygamy. He had one wife at a time, remarrying after the death of his prior spouse.

Polygamy was not accepted by the Church, and it is against divine law. Converts the faith could keep only one wife, but were (and still are) required to support the others and their children.

He did have mistresses-- sinful then as it is now… adultery.
And what of adultery? How was that ever permissible?
Not sure where you got the idea that it was.
 
Many things that were previously sin, now are not. (communion without having made fasting two hours before, going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday, communión on hand … How to know what would be allowed to change and what would not. What we now think it is a sin perhap in the future it will not.
None of these things are sins, nor were they ever sins, intrinsically.

What is a sin is disobeying a Church law. So, if the Church had a particular fasting rule, under pain of sin, then yes it would be a sin to break that rule. The fasting rule was from after midnight, then three hours, and now one hour. So, these things can change.

What can change? disicplinary laws of the Church
What cannot change? Divine law on faith and morals
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top