Brides without veils
#11
(07-12-2021, 01:22 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: IOW, anything enjoined by the 1917 Code that is not enjoined by the 1983 Code is no longer the law.
For those precepts of the 1917 Code that merely reiterate Divine Law, the precepts still hold by Divine Law after having been removed from Canon Law.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Marmot's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#12
(07-12-2021, 01:22 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-11-2021, 02:31 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Canon Law of 1983 did not do away with it, it only did not mention it. Thus, the law should still be in practice under both Scripture and Canon Law of 1917.

Unfortunately for your argument, this is what the 1983 Code DID mention:

Quote:Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

IOW, anything enjoined by the 1917 Code that is not enjoined by the 1983 Code is no longer the law.
Hmmmmmm...but 1 Cor. 11 wasn't abrogated
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply
#13
(07-13-2021, 01:19 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(07-12-2021, 01:22 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-11-2021, 02:31 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Canon Law of 1983 did not do away with it, it only did not mention it. Thus, the law should still be in practice under both Scripture and Canon Law of 1917.

Unfortunately for your argument, this is what the 1983 Code DID mention:

Quote:Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

IOW, anything enjoined by the 1917 Code that is not enjoined by the 1983 Code is no longer the law.
Hmmmmmm...but 1 Cor. 11 wasn't abrogated

True, but paul was not pope. The popes, and the popes alone have the power to bind and loose as they were given that power from God. Thus they have they power to bind and loose decrees. They can loose the faithful of obligations, or bind the faithful to more obligations. The popes cant change the law of God, nor teachings. The can though loose or bind its use (capitol punishment, bind or loose its application, can't abrogate it).
Reply
#14
(07-13-2021, 03:13 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: True, but paul was not pope.
No, but his inspired epistles belong to public revelation, and the Church (and hence the Pope) has no power to change that, or cut parts out from Holy Scripture.
[-] The following 2 users Like Marmot's post:
  • Anon777, newenglandsun
Reply
#15
(07-13-2021, 03:47 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(07-13-2021, 03:13 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: True, but paul was not pope.
No, but his inspired epistles belong to public revelation, and the Church (and hence the Pope) has no power to change that, or cut parts out from Holy Scripture.

That is true, however the pope does have the ability to bind or loose what our obligations are from scripture. Capitol punishment is a God given right of the state as attested in scripture. However, the pope has the right to bind the faithful more on its use, as the last few popes have done. Likewise as has been the case with what is deemed appropriate dress for others in church, the pope can bind or loose the restrictions placed on people. He can't cut it out or change the content, he can though effects the decrees from Scripture. Peter did this with the decree about circumcision.

It is public revelation, and a decree from God, that one must be circumcised to be counted among God's people. Christians where God's people, and God did not repeal that divine command while He was here. Peter though, repealed it saying that we are still God's people, even if gentiles (and I am grateful he did). Same with the restrictions God placed on food. It was through an act of the pope, Peter, exercising his right as pope and holder of the keys, that we are eating pork now. God inspired him, using an angel and dream, however it was Peter that lifted that obligation from Scripture. The apostles accepted his command over this.
Reply
#16
(07-13-2021, 04:16 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote:
(07-13-2021, 03:47 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(07-13-2021, 03:13 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: True, but paul was not pope.
No, but his inspired epistles belong to public revelation, and the Church (and hence the Pope) has no power to change that, or cut parts out from Holy Scripture.

That is true, however the pope does have the ability to bind or loose what our obligations are from scripture. Capitol punishment is a God given right of the state as attested in scripture. However, the pope has the right to bind the faithful more on its use, as the last few popes have done.
Inaccurate. As Bellarmine demonstrates in De Controversiis, a Pope cannot change or alter divine law. This is why the Protestants accused the Pope of being the Antichrist, because he allegedly altered divine law. In addressing these Protestants, Bellarmine asserted that the Pope cannot alter divine law. So if capital punishment is a God-given right to legitimate authorities, the Pope overextend their authority by asserting the State cannot exercise that right. If it is in regards to custom, a Pope reserves the right to change custom. For instance, the Pope can require a specific handshake to be done before one enters into the Vatican palace. He can change the age one receives first communion at. He can alter fasting laws. He can change the age of ordination. He can lift the retirement mandates for bishops. These things do not belong to divine law. He cannot abrogate divine law.

Further, Scripture's authority is above that of a council and since it is a tolerable opinion for one to hold that a Pope is only infallible when defining a doctrine concerning the faith with a council, then Scripture can also be ontologically argued to be above the authority of the Pope.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
[-] The following 1 user Likes newenglandsun's post:
  • Anon777
Reply
#17
(07-13-2021, 06:21 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(07-13-2021, 04:16 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote:
(07-13-2021, 03:47 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(07-13-2021, 03:13 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: True, but paul was not pope.
No, but his inspired epistles belong to public revelation, and the Church (and hence the Pope) has no power to change that, or cut parts out from Holy Scripture.

That is true, however the pope does have the ability to bind or loose what our obligations are from scripture. Capitol punishment is a God given right of the state as attested in scripture. However, the pope has the right to bind the faithful more on its use, as the last few popes have done.
Inaccurate. As Bellarmine demonstrates in De Controversiis, a Pope cannot change or alter divine law. This is why the Protestants accused the Pope of being the Antichrist, because he allegedly altered divine law. In addressing these Protestants, Bellarmine asserted that the Pope cannot alter divine law. So if capital punishment is a God-given right to legitimate authorities, the Pope overextend their authority by asserting the State cannot exercise that right. If it is in regards to custom, a Pope reserves the right to change custom. For instance, the Pope can require a specific handshake to be done before one enters into the Vatican palace. He can change the age one receives first communion at. He can alter fasting laws. He can change the age of ordination. He can lift the retirement mandates for bishops. These things do not belong to divine law. He cannot abrogate divine law.

Further, Scripture's authority is above that of a council and since it is a tolerable opinion for one to hold that a Pope is only infallible when defining a doctrine concerning the faith with a council, then Scripture can also be ontologically argued to be above the authority of the Pope.

I agree on the pope being unable to change divine law, I do think though the pope does have authority on the application of that law. As mentioned the changes made by peter about circumcision, that was a divine law as God Himself mandated it. Peter though decreed that due to baptism being instituted by Christ, that this means this previous law of God is now no longer in effect, it is now changed to be baptism. Thus indicating that the pope has some authority when it comes to divine law as he decreed this, an angel did not come down from God saying it, nor did God command it. Thus to the original point of veils and such. Since this is from paul, and not God, the pope has authority to bind and loose its usage. It is in scripture yes, but so is a plethora of other laws that scripture shows Peter has authority over.

The pope can also bind and loose scripture to a point.

Scripture, the pope can not change per se. It was councils that designated what scripture was, and the popes that verified it. Thus they can't change what is written, but they did and thus would have authority on what is considered 'scripture'. Does bring up the point that since the popes ratified what was true and not, they have that power when it comes to scripture since they used it in defining the canon, is it possible then for a future pope to use that power again and decree that there was an error? Scary thought never thought of, Francis or others deciding that an inconvenient part of scripture was present, and use their authority to get rid of that book (s). Highly doubt it, but since a pope can't force a future pope in an action, and since previous popes demonstrated that the petrine office has authority to designate what is and what is not scripture, I wonder.
Reply
#18
(07-14-2021, 12:47 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: I agree on the pope being unable to change divine law, I do think though the pope does have authority on the application of that law. As mentioned the changes made by peter about circumcision, that was a divine law as God Himself mandated it. Peter though decreed that due to baptism being instituted by Christ, that this means this previous law of God is now no longer in effect, it is now changed to be baptism. Thus indicating that the pope has some authority when it comes to divine law as he decreed this, an angel did not come down from God saying it, nor did God command it. Thus to the original point of veils and such. Since this is from paul, and not God, the pope has authority to bind and loose its usage. It is in scripture yes, but so is a plethora of other laws that scripture shows Peter has authority over.
Circumcision was changed, not by the Pope, but by Christ himself, God, when he instituted a new Pascha. Even if an angel were to tell us something on divine law that contradicted several years of Church teaching, we still would have to reject it. Angels cannot alter divine law either. Only God can alter divine law. He does this by issuing a new covenant.

I think the difficulty for the modernist interpretation here is that St. Paul explicitly argues that the custom be made because of the angels. This cements it as divine law. Even the liberal Scripture commentator Richard B. Hays cannot get around what St. Paul says here so he has to relegate it as not infallible which is obvious heresy. Ironically mitigating the implications by appealing to the Trinity...
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply
#19
(07-14-2021, 02:06 PM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(07-14-2021, 12:47 PM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote: I agree on the pope being unable to change divine law, I do think though the pope does have authority on the application of that law. As mentioned the changes made by peter about circumcision, that was a divine law as God Himself mandated it. Peter though decreed that due to baptism being instituted by Christ, that this means this previous law of God is now no longer in effect, it is now changed to be baptism. Thus indicating that the pope has some authority when it comes to divine law as he decreed this, an angel did not come down from God saying it, nor did God command it. Thus to the original point of veils and such. Since this is from paul, and not God, the pope has authority to bind and loose its usage. It is in scripture yes, but so is a plethora of other laws that scripture shows Peter has authority over.
Circumcision was changed, not by the Pope, but by Christ himself, God, when he instituted a new Pascha. Even if an angel were to tell us something on divine law that contradicted several years of Church teaching, we still would have to reject it. Angels cannot alter divine law either. Only God can alter divine law. He does this by issuing a new covenant.

I think the difficulty for the modernist interpretation here is that St. Paul explicitly argues that the custom be made because of the angels. This cements it as divine law. Even the liberal Scripture commentator Richard B. Hays cannot get around what St. Paul says here so he has to relegate it as not infallible which is obvious heresy. Ironically mitigating the implications by appealing to the Trinity...

That is the justification for the change, but the change itself was overseen by Peter. Reading the passage it looks like James was the decision maker, thus a bishop even declaring it so.

[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
[11] But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. 

[12] And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

[13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. [14] Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. [15] And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:
[16] After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: [17] That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. [18] To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. [19] For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. [20] But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Below is the message sent.

[26] Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. [28] For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: [29] That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. [30] They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch; and gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle.


Thus it was not, according to them, due to Christ commanding them, a new pascha etc. It was a decision of theirs and them thinking that it was good with the Holy Ghost based on the desire of God to have Gentiles converted, that they lifted it all. Later theological studies point to the new pascha, and other reasons justifying it and the theological reasoning behind it, but in the writings from the event in scripture, in the letter they sent, it is a decision they made and not a direct message from God changing it.

Not quiet on the angels part making this divine law. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53011.htm
[1] Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. [2] Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. [3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. [5] But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

[6] For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. [7] The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. [9] For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. [10] Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

[10] "A power": that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.

The reference to angels is angels being present, not as a declaration that this message comes from the angels.
Reply
#20
I didn't say the declaration came from the angels. I said St. Paul appealed to heavenly ordering because it's a divine law. He would not have done this if the divine ordering was meritless.

Sts. Peter and James didn't change the divine law on circumcision. You are reading into it. They showed how Christ's incarnation made it moot because Christ changed the circumcision mandate. This is why at the institution He declares, "This is the New Covenant."
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)