Please support this ministry.
ShalomPlace.com    Shalom Place Community    Shalom Place Discussion Groups  Hop To Forum Categories  General Discussion Forums  Hop To Forums  Christian Morality and Theology    Churches and doctrines: sorting things out.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Churches and doctrines: sorting things out. Login/Join 
posted Hide Post
That's a helpful discussion of fundamental option theories on that website.

Thanks for taking a look at that CAF thread, Phil.
 
Posts: 82 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 05 October 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Quite welcome, Ariel. Smiler
 
Posts: 3580 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
I read something from the book that interested me and that maybe somebody here could help me with. Marshall discusses the similarities between the Jewish yarmulke/kippah and the Catholic zucchetto/pileolus (skull caps). I hadn't thought about this before, but St. Paul says (1 Cor 11) that it is disgraceful for a man to pray or prophesy with something on his head...but that it is disgraceful for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered. Why then do Catholic clergy wear these pileolus and if Paul means something else in these verses, what does he mean?


No takers then? Go on, give it go Wink
 
Posts: 715 | Location: South Africa | Registered: 12 August 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
1 Corinthians 11:4

According to my Bible commentary, Roman men used to pull the loose part of their toga over their heads when worshiping. So what St. Paul is advising is that Christian men should not do the same.
 
Posts: 934 | Location: Canada | Registered: 03 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Derek, you've won an IPA from Pop-pop for that answer.
 
Posts: 82 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 05 October 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Big Grin
 
Posts: 1091 | Registered: 05 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
But note, again, that one must know something is seriously sinful and freely/willingly commit the act anyway. Interesting that artificial birth control is not on this list! It used to be.
...
Wink


Ah, so when artificial birth control was considered seriously sinful,those Catholics
who did not see it as so & used birth control,
were not considered to be committing a serious
sin. It is only if one understands & agrees with the Church, who then uses birth control who was considered to be in serious sin.

So the Church does not try & force beliefs on its members through guilt, shame, fear ect.

Wow am I understanding this correctly?
 
Posts: 386 | Registered: 01 April 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Mary Sue, I'm sure there are still listings of grave matter that include artificial birth control. But, yes to your question: one must know something is gravely wrong and freely choose to do it anyway for it to be a mortal sin. That doesn't mean that those who do such acts but don't know it's a mortal sin aren't sinning to some degree and experiencing consequences, however. The teaching is supposed to indicate danger zones, thus providing a service to believers.

When you say "the Church does not try to force beliefs on its members through guilt, shame, fear, etc." that would need to be better nuanced, as there are a wide range of beliefs taught by the Church. And what do you mean by "the Church," here? Generally, the Magisterium (official teaching authority) just states things in straightforward manner.
 
Posts: 3580 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
Mary Sue, I'm sure there are still listings of grave matter that include artificial birth control. But, yes to your question: one must know something is gravely wrong and freely choose to do it anyway for it to be a mortal sin. That doesn't mean that those who do such acts but don't know it's a mortal sin aren't sinning to some degree and experiencing consequences, however. "

Yes, I umderstand what you are saying here.



" The teaching is supposed to indicate danger zones, thus providing a service to believers.

When you say "the Church does not try to force beliefs on its members through guilt, shame, fear, etc." that would need to be better nuanced, as there are a wide range of beliefs taught by the Church. And what do you mean by "the Church," here? Generally, the Magisterium (official teaching authority) just states things in straightforward manner.


Yes, saying "The Church" didn't feel right but didn't
know how else to put it at the time. I would say
hierachy of the church, priests, bishops ect. Where
using these forms of these behaviors is acceptable practice.

Recently I had an discussion with a Methodist minister who acknowledged very honestly
that in the past some Methodist ministers had used guilt, fear, ect. to attempt to control their membership's behavior. He sard they used it because it worked. He commented that they had seen long term negative affects from that approach.

I don't know if the Church addresses the topic of woman's liberation.

As an example, I watched someone I knew being confirmed and becoming a Catholic. When asked by the priest,they said they wished their confirmation name to be Teresa after St. Teresa of Avila. She was not given a chance to say why. It was because of her contemplative prayer life.

As soon as the Priest heard St. Teresa of Avila, he rolled his eye & said, you know she is only 1 of 2 woman doctor's of the Church. Yes, she said. In front of 1,000 people he said in a demeaning way, your not one of those
woman's libber's are you? It seemed to her that the priest sought to publicly make a strong statement either personal or of the church beliefs, at her expense, about what he perceived as a woman's place in the Church.

What I have read of Church doctrine it states
that woman and men are different but equal. To the best of my understanding being a woman's
libber of feminist isn't a sin. So I had nothing to offer her as to the priest's
comments.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mary Sue,
 
Posts: 386 | Registered: 01 April 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Thanks for the reply Derek. I'm just not sure that your commentary makes the passage any clearer. Paul is addressing both men and woman and giving direction to both concerning head coverings (or perhaps even veils).

Most of the information on the internet only addresses woman and whether or not they still have to wear hats or some other form of head covering during worship services.

Almost nothing addresses this passage from the male side. Since there clearly is a relationship between Jewish head coverings and Catholic head coverings it just seems strange that Paul makes these statements.

Regarding the possible explanation based on Roman practice, it just seems odd that Paul would make such general statements to a Church in Greece that would have contained Grecian, Roman and Jewish men all with there own cultural norms regarding head coverings.

I also find it strange that I can find very little concerning the head coverings of Catholic clergy related to Paul's admonishment in this passage.
 
Posts: 715 | Location: South Africa | Registered: 12 August 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
With this list of Grave or Mortal sin, there doesn't seem to be much that constitutes venial sin.

I understand that it also depends on whether the person is aware that the matter is grave or mortal sin, but what sorts of things would then be venial sin?
 
Posts: 715 | Location: South Africa | Registered: 12 August 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Mary Sue, I'm sure that one can find many stories of abusive teachers, priests, bishops, etc. in the Catholic tradition and also in Protestantism as well, as you've noted. One can also find many examples of these leaders being encouraging, affirming, and making sacrifices for others. What's disturbing is when people point to the bad examples as somehow normative for a faith tradition.

- - -

Jacques, that's a good list you came up with, but it's not so much a list of mortal sins but of the kinds of behaviors that constitute "Grave Matter." Grave Matter is only one aspect of committing a Mortal Sin, however, along with Full Knowledge and and Deliberate Consent, as the article also notes. As I pointed out in another post, circumstance plays a role, too, as in being too sick to fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Re. venial sin, the article notes:
quote:
. . . venial sin is a sin of lesser matter than grave sin. It can also be a sin of grave matter in which the sinner did not fully consent to the sin or did not have knowledge that his actions where sinful. Venial sins will not destroy grace in the soul, and will not directly cause a person who dies in the state of venial sin to lose the promise of heaven. Yet, venial sin weakens a person’s will to avoid evil and thus may indirectly lead to mortal sin. Regardless, all sin is an offense against God and should be avoided.


Lots of ways to sin! Wink

Maybe we can move on from the topic of Mortal and Venial Sin, however? Seems we've covered just about every possible angle of this topic.
 
Posts: 3580 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

ShalomPlace.com    Shalom Place Community    Shalom Place Discussion Groups  Hop To Forum Categories  General Discussion Forums  Hop To Forums  Christian Morality and Theology    Churches and doctrines: sorting things out.