Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 10:33 PM']The churches would handle it and while it would be hard to enforce, so is any law. But it is the law nevertheless. And we find the authentic spirit of the law in the letter of the law. Canon Law says that we must attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of obligation. We are obliged. It is our duty to receive Holy Communion once a year, at least. Frequent reception is laudable. That is the law. We are to obey. What are we to make of those who don't live by the law? Let's not force them? I disagree. They need to be told and catechized. They need to know that Canon Law is binding on Catholics in a religous sense. It is not ceremonial, it is real and it is binding on Catholics. [right][snapback]631879[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Cam, again, both curtins and I are speaking of forcing [i]non catholics[/i] to go to Mass. No one is arguing with you that catholics are obligated to go to Mass. That is clear in the Code of Canon Law. The question is whether or not [i]all[/i] people, catholic and non-catholic, should be forced to go to Mass. Our response is a definitive "no" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 [quote]The question is whether or not all people, catholic and non-catholic, should be forced to go to Mass.[/quote] No it isn't. Read the question again. The question is: [quote]Should Sunday church attendence every week be required by law?[/quote] The answer to that question is it already is!!!!! Where does it say anything about [i]all people[/i] or non-Catholics? That is my point. Sunday church attendance is required by law. Canon law. Dairy may have intended something else, but by her wording, the answer is: "It already is required by law." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Cam, you are a smart guy, you know that Dairy intended for the question to concern broad governmental legislation which would make Mass attendence obligatory for all people, including non-catholics, given the fact that her last two or three posts have concerned governmental legislation and the Natural Law Why pick apart her question with semantics? No one is arguing about Canon Law, so what do you gain by making a point that no one is contesting when the intention of the post was clearly something different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Um, are we talking about civil law or canon (Church) law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 [quote name='scardella' date='Jul 5 2005, 10:16 AM']Um, are we talking about civil law or canon (Church) law? [right][snapback]632106[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The question was intended to ask about civil law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 5 2005, 10:33 AM']The question was intended to ask about civil law. [right][snapback]632122[/snapback][/right] [/quote] So, why are peeps talking about canon law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Oh, I guess this begs the question: Is participation in its services a necessary and proper function of religion? What about anti-religion? If so, is it a good thing to mandate it by law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I believe Canon Law only reiterates what Divine Law says. It's okay by Divine Law to require all to attend Mass each week, so if we want to be that literal, yes. dairygirl, did you mean civil law by authorities or any law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 4 2005, 08:16 PM'] not improper theology, just improper phrasing. [right][snapback]631772[/snapback][/right] [/quote] not trying to be pernicious, but, isin't that what material heresy sometimes consists of...(as well as sometimes us being just out-right wrong in our theology at times, as with origens material heresies)....but improper theology sometimes comes from improper phrasing it seems, even if you had the proper idea... just one preposition off...and...it can be like the telescope aiming into outer space...one degree off ....and you'll never reach the intended target in space...just wanted to point out the connection between proper phrasing and proper theology, or, that they [i]are connected[/i] at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 5 2005, 11:43 AM']not trying to be pernicious, but, isin't that what material heresy sometimes consists of...(as well as sometimes us being just out-right wrong in our theology at times, as with origens material heresies)....but improper theology sometimes comes from improper phrasing it seems, even if you had the proper idea... just one preposition off...and...it can be like the telescope aiming into outer space...one degree off ....and you'll never reach the intended target in space...just wanted to point out the connection between proper phrasing and proper theology, or, that they [i]are connected[/i] at least [right][snapback]632183[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yep, I would say most material heresy comes from improper phrasing. But in this case, nothing I said even comes close to material heresy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 (edited) [quote name='scardella' date='Jul 5 2005, 10:56 AM']So, why are peeps talking about canon law? [right][snapback]632150[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Really im not sure. I think someone felt it important to point out that Canon law makes it obligatory for catholics to attend Mass every sunday, but, while true, it really doesn't pertain to the topic, which was clearly intended to discuss civil legislation. So, back on topic: should the civil government enact laws which would make it mandatory for everyone to attend Mass each week? Edited July 5, 2005 by JeffCR07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrvoll Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 you forgot saturday night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 hahaha, yea, Sunday/Saturday night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspen2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 the requirement by civil law for one to attend sunday church services would make religion pharisaical.... a mere legal chore that every citizen must perform, rather than a moral assertion, statement of belief, or an active moral judgement.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Where in the heck does dairy say anything about civil law v. canon law. She asked if it should be required by law. IT IS....Yes, I am a smart guy....and with that being the case, the differentiation is important. The only person who has dismissed canon law in this thread so far is you, Jeff. [quote]So, back on topic: should the civil government enact laws which would make it mandatory for everyone to attend Mass each week?[/quote] That is your implication. Incidentally, I am not the one who started nit-picking this thread, that would be you. So, don't ask if I have issues with you, you should look in the mirror. Reread the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts