L'Eglise Aristotelicienne Romaine The Roman and Aristotelic Church

[Gropius]

I inform my brother and sister cardinals that the Empire has made new amendments to the Imperial Constitution providing as follows:

[Kalixtus]

It is correct, I don't have the obligation to talk about it and I don't see the need to talk about something that is completely overrated in its importance.

I am not inclined to cluck like chickens laying eggs.

This decision of the Empire does not contradict the Matrimonium Prohibitem and it does not stand in the way of doing our work.

On the contrary, it pays respect to the idea that love is the first commandment of God and that marriage, as a sacrament, is an ecclesiastical matter.

As can be seen in the law, it is not a sacramentalisation but an administrative act.

I do not see any dogmatic problem in this, since our attention must also be directed to the concerns of the aristots as a whole. The state, however, must also take into account all those who are not Aristotelian.

I'm sorry if I can't shorten my view the way other cardinals do.

_________________

[Arnarion]

It's a big problem. The Church only authorizes and recognizes marriage as a sacrament. Any civil act that replaces it will be null and void, with the consequences that this will have on genealogies and inheritances. People of the Empire must be well aware of this.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that we recognize this civil act if it is only seen as a step following a religious union. All matrimony shall be contracted at the church first. So we keep the doctrine and its application safe.

_________________

[Kalixtus]

Correct - marriage - not a civil union. A distinction MUST be made between the sacrament and an administrative act.

Moreover, the church has no influence on the spheres outside the Aristotelian community.

Here, too, a distinction MUST be made. The dogma is virtually ridiculed, Arnarion, if we are exclusively unmoved and unimpressed by people expressing their love.

Marriage has its dogmatic legitimacy and a sacramental structure anyway.

But we are not talking about the sacrament here. So formally, the state does not take anything away from the church, but offers a civil option to all those people who are NOT aristots and thus the state takes its responsibility towards all those people whom WE do not reach anymore, because we do not care about them or because we have frightened them away permanently, by unspeakable behavioral paradigms and the inflexibility of some minds that think to take only a tiny part of the dogma as a basis for a comprehensive deformation of the truth.

One must argue very clearly against this.

_________________

[Fenice]

I knew they were discussing this, but I was not aware of the outcome.
This issue requires a decision by the Curia and the Holy Father. I have already raised the problem of the unstoppable anti-religious drift in the empire, which none of us individually can stem.

For a long time, I repeat, there have been preponderant forces in the imperial government working to take away the importance, respect and influence of the Church. They have gradually passed new laws contrary to Dogma and Canon Law, and have done so thanks to the majority vote and thanks to the lack of real opposition from those who represent us in the imperial council.

I do not share Cardinal Kalixtus' view. To let this umpteenth law contrary to the Aristotelian religion pass in silence is to abdicate.
However, as I have always said, this problem cannot be dealt with by one person or simply by the Nunciature. When the Church was powerful, a simple communiqué was enough, now that the winds are blowing against us, our voice should be that of the totality of our forces.

The error comes from thinking that one person can acquire power and use it for the Church. The power of the individual only counts for the individual... the power of the Church can only be that of a cohesive community.

Are we a cohesive community? If we are, let us all speak and act together, and the Nunciature will be in the front row to represent the voice of this community. But if we are a divided, indifferent, distracted community, then no single voice will be worth a ducat.
_________________

[Kalixtus]

But if so - Fenice - what is Church - is Church only the Cardinals + Pope?

Is Church the Bishops and Priests?

Or is Church the People ?

And beside this - is Church also Religion ? or is Religion Church?

I can say - if the Church is made of all Aristotelians, why you think that only Cardinals are allowed to think.

If the People are important than why not listening - the majority of the Empire Regents voted for this civil union, which is not a sacrament and didn't take anything away from Church.

Of course the german regents are not following cause German Kingdom always follows my advises.

I don't think that this cast a lot of trouble - as well as the BA didn't cast as apocalyptical trouble.

But you can of course think different and think that the last days on earth started, cause the state take care about those people you all lost - as well as i did.

I see all of this attitude more as a private task to do more and more and more - and not just sitting here and feel like a chicken that layed an egg.

Sorry.

And by the way - the Matrimonium Prohibitem is still VALID - don't forget it.

_________________

[Urbain_mastiggia]

- Il me semble que l'Eglise reste concernée par ceux qui ne sont pas aristotéliciens et leurs agissements. En témoigne la section E, Livre 4 du Droit Canon. Par ailleurs, si je lis correctement le document présenté par notre éminent Doyen, alors je lis que cette union civile autorise la fondation d'une famille. Or le mariage, sacrement, est défini dans le Livre 1, Partie 2, Section A, notamment à l'article 1 : "La cause finale = Une union devant le Très-Haut et les hommes dans le but de fonder une famille et de trouver l’amitié aristotélicienne." Il y a donc une contradiction au Droit Canon en autorisant une union civile qui permettrait la même finalité que le sacrement du mariage. Cette union civile serait donc assimilée à un mariage laïc et tomberait alors sous le coup de Matrimonium Prohibitem. Egalement, il me semble qu'il y a une différence entre que ce que nous appelons l'Amour, qui est avant tout la dévotion au Très-Haut, et l'Amitié Aristotélicienne, qui rassemble deux fidèles en parfaite harmonie, et qui ressemble donc au sentiment. Lorsque j'entends dire que l'Église n'est qu'amour et pardon et qu'elle peut tolérer bien des écarts, et bien j'ai peur que ces fidèles là ne se fourvoient en oubliant que nous parlons de L'aimer Lui avant tout le reste. L'Eglise sait pardonner, elle aime ses fidèles mais elle aime le Très-Haut par dessus tout et donc respecte le Dogme établit. Lors du baptême, ne reconnaissons nous pas que l'Église Aristotélicienne comme notre guide dans la connaissance du Très-Haut et ne jurons nous pas de lui rester fidèle ainsi qu'à son autorité, seule représentante sur terre d'être divin ?

Pour en revenir à notre sujet, je pense qu'effectivement, il s'agit d'une ligne simple qui reste contraire à la fois au Droit Canon et au Dogme.


------------------------------------------------------------------

- It seems to me that the Church remains concerned about those who are not Aristotelians and their actions. This is evidenced by Section E, Book 4 of Canon Law. Furthermore, if I read correctly the document presented by our eminent Dean, then I read that this civil union authorises the foundation of a family. Yet marriage, a sacrament, is defined in Book 1, Part 2, Section A, notably in Article 1: "The final cause = A union before the Most High and men for the purpose of founding a family and finding Aristotelian friendship." There is therefore a contradiction in Canon Law in allowing a civil union which would allow the same end as the sacrament of marriage. This civil union would therefore be assimilated to a secular marriage and would then fall under Matrimonium Prohibitem. Also, it seems to me that there is a difference between what we call Love, which is above all devotion to the Most High, and Aristotelian Friendship, which brings two faithful together in perfect harmony, and which therefore resembles sentiment. When I hear people say that the Church is only love and forgiveness and that it can tolerate many deviations, well, I am afraid that these faithful are mistaken in forgetting that we are talking about loving Him above all else. The Church knows how to forgive, she loves her faithful but she loves the Most High above all and therefore respects the established Dogma. When we are baptized, do we not recognize the Aristotelian Church as our guide in the knowledge of the Most High and do we not swear to remain faithful to it and to its authority, the only representative on earth of a divine being?

To return to our subject, I think it is indeed a simple line that remains contrary to both Canon Law and Dogma.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
_________________

[Fenice]

So, Brother Kalixtus, are you telling me that you are the Salvator Fidelium and that the Curia is useless because the Church loses the faithful whom you protect and represent, in a personal capacity?
_________________

[silvio_1]

Diese geistige Vereinigung drückt sich in besonderem Maße zwischen Ehegatten im Rahmen der Ehe aus. Die Ehegatten seien durch eine reine und uneigennützige Liebe dazu angehalten, diese vollkommene Freundschaft zu bilden, die das Pfand der aristotelischen Heiligkeit ist. Durch diese so schöne Vereinigung der Ehegatten ist es Gott selbst, Quelle jeder Liebe, der verherrlicht wird.
So verkörpert sich die aristotelische Freundschaft besonders in der Ehe und findet dort eine authentische Verwirklichung.
Die Ehe ist unentbehrlich für die verkörperte Liebe, denn sie bildet eine Lebensgemeinschaft die zur Zeugung von Kindern und Gründung einer Familie bestimmt ist, auf dass die Liebe Früchte tragen möge. Doch nicht nur Kinder können Früchte der Ehe sein, sondern auch gemeinsame Handlungen im Sinne der Aristotelischen Freundschaft zum Lobe Gottes. Es ist eine feste und starke Verpflichtung, in der die Ehegatten sich versprechen, zusammen gegen die Keime von Hass und Chaos jenseits der Schwierigkeiten des täglichen Lebens zu kämpfen.

Cardinal Kalixtus, per quanto io abbia rispetto di voi,non concordo con le vostre parole.
Esiste un solo Sacramento del matrimonio , ed è quello aristotelico celebrato da un Chierico.
Mi sorprendono le vostre parole , dato che IL dogma, dice che l 'amore vero e sincero è l 'unione tra due persone benedetto dall 'Altissimo.
Non può esistere l 'unione civile in questo nostro tempo, volete cedere alle imposizioni , di vedere coppie unite nel peccato? Fare figli fuori dal Sacramento del matrimonio?
Non è amore l 'unione civile, ma una peccaminosa unione convittuale
Si fanno accuse di andare contro il Dogma , per alcuni errori che ognuno di noi può fare, e Voi dite che bisogna fare "distinzione" tra civile e matrimonio.
Forse Voi non avete capito che coloro che chiedono il civile intendono proprio : matrimonio civile, celebrato dal Sindaco di una città, di un capitano di qualche nave.
Ho avuto molto da discutere su questo argomento.
Pensate davvero che accettare , le imposizioni laiche per un 'unione civile, riavvicini i laici alla Chiesa?
No! Sono stati fatti troppi errori, e non sarà un Si, a fare tornare ai laici la fiducia verso la Chiesa.


Cardinal Kalixtus, as much as I respect you, I do not agree with your words.
There is only one Sacrament of marriage , and it is the Aristotelian one celebrated by a Cleric.

I am surprised by your words, since THE dogma says that true and sincere love is the union between two people blessed by the Most High.
Can’t there be civil union in our time, do you want to give in to impositions , to see couples united in sin? Make children outside the sacrament of marriage?
Civil union is not love, but a sinful convittual union.

There are accusations of going against the Dogma, for some mistakes that each of us can make, and you say that we must make "distinction" between civil and marriage.
Perhaps you have not understood that those who ask for civilian means: civil marriage, celebrated by the Mayor of a city, of a captain of some ship.
I’ve had a lot to discuss about this.

Do you really think that accepting , the lay impositions for a 'civil union, bringing the laity closer to the Church?
No! Too many mistakes have been made, and it will not be a Yes, to make the laity return to trust in the Church.
_________________

[Gropius]

I don't know where we are anymore, honestly. Here we take the side of those who are not Aristotelian. Excuse me, perhaps I have been asleep all this time, but weren't those who are not Aristotelian heretics or heterodox? How can we allow an empire that calls itself 'sacred' even in its own wording to allow people to fall into mortal sin? How can you claim this, brother Kalixtus? You who are in charge of the very Congregation that is supposed to spread the Faith and catechise the people? We should have been the ones to grant the wishes of love and family, even to people of the same sex, you know how I think, but we should have done it at the Council!

And who can guarantee us that an engaged couple, albeit an Aristotelian couple, on a whim because their bishop does not want to give them the nulla osta to go and marry at the end of the world, will decide to unite civilly?

How can we combat heresy and heterodoxy by remaining silent in the face of such legislative acts? But you, Brother Kalixtus, have not remained silent. You spoke in favour of both this law and, in the end and here in the Sacred College, almost in favour of the Bulla, "which, after all, did not have apocalyptic effects", a heretical text! Are you well, Brother Kalixtus?
_________________

Cardinal-Bishop † Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals † Grand Audiencier of the Holy See † Vice Chancellor of the Pontifical Chancellery † Archbishop of Strasbourg † Governor of the Patrimony of Titus † Prince of Viterbo † Marquis of Santa Marinella ♝Il cielo e la terra♗

[Kalixtus]

And what's stopping the church from doing it, Arduino?

What stops us from having this debate that the majority of society wants?

You all also still mistake the sacrament which nobody took, with an administrative entry in a civil register that two heterodox people - NOT Aristotelian - establish with each other a communion of love.

I see in this very much the divine mandate to give preference to love. I'm sorry if you are all referring exclusively once again to one part of the dogma - just that one part that describes marriage. As an act of procreation, as a sacramentalization of friendship.

From my perspective, you are all thinking too short, too politically, too power-oriented, and bypassing reality.

I am rather appalled by the ridiculous arguments that are put forward here, some of which are also highly polemicized and personalized, as by you Arduino. I expect much more substantive from you than that.

Silvio I am always amused how you of all people want to tell me what I understand and what I do not. As if I am a stupid little schoolboy. Sorry I can't take your words seriously so I will ignore them.

Also your words Fenice remind me more of that of a hearing sick person - how about you just appoint some more bishops without certificate, they can then establish faith in your region. Ridiculous.

Urbain, also here you are excellent in the interpretation matrix. You speak of marriage as a union between man and God - all this is true - but there are also people who enter into a union of love without performing a marriage as we define it.

This may not please us, this may irritate us and this may annoy us, but this is the way it is. And since we do not seem to be able to face this problem with acceptable dignity, the state has to act. It always did so far.

The BA should have taken the Church as an opportunity to organize and question the relationship with the Empire. But the church did not do that, on the contrary, even far-reaching blockades were piled up, like angry little children.

I see big problems in this and I address them directly. The state is not responsible for the growing number of heresy and heterodoxy in the Empire, that is the failure of those who hide here in the ivory tower and make big speeches.

I do not have this problem in the German Zone - despite the fact that we have no concordat, no treaties, no excommunications, no revolts, and no pointless debates about minority problems piled up here.

Instead, I have ended heresies - in Holland, for example. So I wonder where the problematic is.

Here again dust is raised without sense and reason. Hysterical shrieking from Italy, the world is ending, we have to work.

That's how it looks to me, sorry. If the church does not generate attraction and make people interested in it, then it is just an illusion.

But since it is not, it would be appropriate to spend one' s few brain cells to see this as an opportunity and not always as an attack.

Once again - the matrimonium prohibitem is still valid for all aristotes. The only thing this new law discounts are all those who are not Aristotelian. I think this can only be useful for us to see those faces for once.

So get a grip and stop whining. These worldly connections have been around for ages. Whether they are in a law or not.

[Adonnis]

I agree with Silvio. I don't see how to separate civil union from marriage just because it has a different name.

I can then defend a union between a man and his pet and call it a "great union". Oh, I won't be wrong, after all I am not talking about Aristotelian marriage.

Any form of union of two human beings, contrary to dogma, is contrary to the Church. By no stretch of the imagination can I understand why a clergyman should advocate this, if he puts his oath and the Church he serves first.

I see no other appropriate reaction from the Church than to include this in the Index.

_________________

.....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

[Cathelineau]

I will be pragmatic and ask because I do not know the empire. What can we do apart from yet another ad that won't be read? Do we have the means to make ourselves heard?
_________________

[silvio_1]

[heldor]

I have a doubt: is it not our task, as priests, to do apostolic work? And how do we pretend to be able to do apostolate if we do not convince the people that the Aristotelian way is the only one that leads to salvation if we give them the opportunity to find loopholes in order to be able to submit to Dogma and Canon Law?
At this point we can allow the priests to get married! Do you know that in this way we would solve half the problem of the vocation crisis? Yet it is never done! Indeed, I still remember a discussion, many years ago, in these rooms, where I was attacked because I supported what I said above!
We are here to do what brother Kalixtus? For the good of the Aristotelian Ecumene, in the most ancient and profound sense of the term, that is, for the community made up of faithful, priests and laity, so that their souls can be saved in the Solar Paradise!
Does this rule help us do this, if it allows ALL citizens of the Empire to unite with "civil unions"? I don't think so!

Brother Kalixtus, your arguments are reasonable, except that, as the situation was stated by the Dean, the right to unite with "civil union" is for all citizens of the Empire.
Could you show this assembly, please, a document which excludes the Aristotelian faithful from this right to "avoid religious marriage"?
_________________
+S.Ecc.Ill.ma frà Tebaldo Foscari detto Heldor il randello
Cardinale Vescovo Emerito di San Domenico in Burgos
Primate delle Venezie e Stato da Mar
Legato Apostolico per le Venezie e Stato da Mar
Patriarca Metropolita di Venezia
Arcivescovo Sine Cura di Gorizia
Padre Generale dell'Ordine di San Domenico,
Conte di Sezze
ecc.