L'Eglise Aristotelicienne Romaine The Roman and Aristotelic Church

[Sixtus]

After the exchanges on the so called civil unions in the empire and with similar moves elsewhere, the need to reiterate the position of the Church has become evident.
We have drafted a new text to be added to Canon Law as complementary to the Matrimonium prohibitem, Cardinal Kalixtus has also kindly suggested some modifications.
We show both texts for consideration and debate for five days which will then be followed by an advisory vote, translations will follow. As per internal rules the deanery is to inform all members of this debate.

[Sixtus]

[Eng]

[Kalixtus]

As noted, the second - legal part is the same. So the conclusion remains untouched. What the versions differ in is the dimensioning of the concept of love, which, in my opinion, had to be much more diverse than it is in the original text.

The church, especially when it works with the most important concept, has to argue especially carefully and in the sense of metaphysics in order not to damage itself by structural formulations.

Therefore, in the end, I consider my version to be safer and more accurate in relation to the dimension and diversity of the terminology through the dogmatic hierarchy.

_________________

[Adonnis]

Holy Father,

Messengers have been dispatched to all the Cardinals.

_________________

.....Cardinal-Presbyter of Saint Anthony of the Portuguese / Grand Audiencier of the Holy See / General Inquisitor of Portugal
...............Primate of Portugal / Metropolitan Archbishop of Braga / Bishop of Vila Real / Duke of Monte Real

[Fenice]

I will read the two texts very carefully and after I will give my advice.
_________________

[Pie de Valence]

FR :

[Adonnis]

Would you like to propose any alternative version for this passage mentioned by you, Brother Pie?



Pie de Valence a écrit:

FR : Citation: qu'elle soit appelée « mariage laïc », « union civile » ou les dénominations les plus diverses, est hérétique et blasphématoire Qu'en termes violents cela est dit et après, on s'étonne que les pouvoirs laïcs se sentent agressés ! Encore une fois, séparons l'Etat et l'Eglise. L'Etat met en place des unions civiles, ça le regarde mais arrêtons ces anathèmes qui n'ont ni queue, ni tête puisque, de toute façon, à réagir comme cela, même nos fidèles vont finir par nous prendre en grippe et à nous considérer comme réactionnaires et intolérants. Notre devoir est juste de prévenir nos fidèles qu'au regard du dogme et du droit canon, un tel mariage n'a aucune valeur juridique aux yeux de l'Eglise et qu'en conséquence, ils ne seront pas réputés mariés. C'est pourquoi, nous les invitons à doubler, s'ils y ont recours, cette cérémonie civile, d'une cérémonie religieuse afin d'être en règle devant l'Etat et devant Dieu. IT : Citation: che si chiami "matrimonio secolare", "unione civile" o le denominazioni più diverse, è eretico e blasfemo Che in termini violenti si dica questo e poi ci si stupisce che i poteri secolari si sentano attaccati! Ancora una volta, separiamo Stato e Chiesa. Lo Stato istituisce le unions civilis, sta a lui, ma smettiamola con questi anatemi che non hanno né coda né capo visto che, comunque, a reagire così, anche i nostri fedeli finiranno per prendere in antipatia noi e noi visti come reazionario e intollerante. Il nostro dovere è solo quello di avvertire i nostri fedeli che secondo il dogma e il diritto canonico, un tale matrimonio non ha valore legale agli occhi della Chiesa e che, di conseguenza, non saranno considerati sposati. Per questo, li invitiamo a raddoppiare, se vi ricorrono, questa cerimonia civile, di una cerimonia religiosa per essere in regola davanti allo Stato e davanti a Dio. ANG : Citation: whether called "secular marriage", "civil union" or the most diverse denominations, is heretical and blasphemous That in violent terms this is said and afterwards, one is surprised that the secular powers feel attacked! Once again, let us separate the State and the Church. The State sets up civil unions, that's up to it, but let's stop these anathemas which have neither tail nor head since, in any case, to react like that, even our faithful will end up taking a dislike to us and to us consider as reactionary and intolerant. Our duty is just to warn our faithful that with regard to dogma and canon law, such a marriage has no legal value in the eyes of the Church and that, consequently, they will not be deemed to be married. This is why, we invite them to double, if they have recourse to it, this civil ceremony, of a religious ceremony in order to be in good standing before the State and before God.

_________________

.....Cardinal-Presbyter of Saint Anthony of the Portuguese / Grand Audiencier of the Holy See / General Inquisitor of Portugal
...............Primate of Portugal / Metropolitan Archbishop of Braga / Bishop of Vila Real / Duke of Monte Real

[Pie de Valence]

[Urbain_mastiggia]

- Je ne suis pas certain que votre version soit plus apaisante, cher frère. Votre texte conseille de doubler la cérémonie laïque d'une cérémonie religieuse là où les autorités temporelles n'ont pas leur mot à dire sur les sacrements. Prôner la séparation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat est une chose, mais cela donnera inévitablement des dérives et cela n'empêchera absolument pas les Etats de souhaiter conserver le contrôle des évêchés. C'est un autre débat, je le sais. Mais le texte de notre Saint-Père me semble tout ce qu'il y a de plus éclairé sur la question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure that your version is more soothing, dear brother. Your text advises doubling the secular ceremony with a religious ceremony where the temporal authorities have no say in the sacraments. It is one thing to advocate the separation of Church and State, but this will inevitably lead to abuses and it will not prevent the States from wishing to keep control of the bishoprics. That is another debate, I know. But the text of our Holy Father seems to me to be the most enlightened on the question.
_________________

[Kalixtus]

I agree with the words of Urbain concerning Pie, his draft is not working - i still disagree with hin about the first part of the proposal of his Holiness cause i still see the aspects and dimensions of love are not coming into the concentrated and needed togetherness. It will cast a lot of misunderstandings and troubles across the faithfuls.

Especially the dimension of metaphysics which is extraordinary important.

_________________

[Francesco_maria]

"I believe that the "violent" terms mentioned by card. Pies do not exist, or rather, they do exist but they are designed not to do violence but to give the clarity and precision necessary to a legal document that integrates Canon Law in the part concerning marriage.

As regards the content, I feel more inclined to accept the second document, the one with the additions by card. Kalixstus, because I think it is useful to make people understand and reaffirm what the foundation of marriage is.

However, in the initial part of the text with the wording of card. Kalixstus (which I report later) I disagree with the use of the word "truth" I would speak more of "force" or "elements" or even "virtue" rather than "truth". But this is only a linguistic technicality not a problem that alters the substance of the text."

[Kalixtus]

I have no trouble with that edition - force - sounds nice to me and i guess we all know what a force the love can be. Maybe the most powerful of all.

_________________

[Sixtus]

Sister Fenice, we await your opinion, as that of all our brothers and sisters who have not expressed themselves yet. The time for consideration is almost over and we would like to hear everyone's opinion.

We think a clarification on the first text is needed: it does not concern the dimension of love at large, which is a much wider field, but, as stated in the text itself, only the pure and disinterested love which is the foundation of marriage and derives directly from Aristotelian Friendship.
Clearly, nobody expects a loving mother to marry her own son or a benevolent king his entire people, while marriage is the logical outcome of pure love between in a couple, something that is missing, for instance, in concubinage or purely carnal unions.

Brother Pie, to let everyone read and understand your proposal you should add at least one translation for those who don't master the Gaulish language.
Brother Kalixtus, if you agree with this proposed change feel free to implement it in the second text.
_________________

Eskerrik asko Iñési sinaduragatik

[Fenice]

Holy Father, my opinion does not go into the merits of the contents, because they should not and cannot be questioned, of course. So I will speak about something other than the content, and that is the intention.

The Pope's intervention is always an intervention of authority. If you think there is currently a strong need to reiterate the Pope's authority, then the general tone of the text is appropriate. However, if you think there is also a need for a more properly pastoral aspect and a note of comfort for the faithful who wish to follow the Church and feel disoriented, then perhaps it would be better to soften the general tone and be a little simpler, without changing the content.

This is my contribution to the debate, and although it may not seem like it, it is concrete. I am available for further elaboration if you find it useful.
_________________

[Sixtus]

This is not about papal authority, sister, but about a sacrament that is shamelessly attacked. But, please, go on and elaborate further, everyone's opinion here is more than useful.
_________________

Eskerrik asko Iñési sinaduragatik