@not_so_gratian case in further point: in context even THAT citation isn’t a slam-dunk “Aquinas teaches this” proof-text, but merely a premise (“it seems”) used in the course of a building different argument
also a whole lot embedded in claiming “earthly friendship” vs “spiritual friendship”
@father_rmv@Melody31Cecilia at the same time, I think it would also be beneficial to push back on claims like “abomination” and “desecration”, which overstate the case far too aggressively
there’s a big difference between “certainly illicit” and “nefas est”
@TomCrowe@jdflynn@quantumking_@RejoiceCC yeah, we've done a terrible job explaining this!
but I think the key is: Fridays are penitential, as distinct from any specific penance being required on Fridays
so we do fall back on "each in his or her own way, to do penance" (with non-binding recommendations), but
@RejoiceCC@BCSWowbagger no – I understand what you’re saying, but this whole “technically required” framing is just bad legalism
our legal system explicitly recognizes custom as a source of law: and the custom (for c.277 with deacons, and for c.1251 in the USA) is quite clear
also, this isn’t nothing:
@TomCrowe@jdflynn@quantumking_@RejoiceCC abstinence not being specifically required is a distraction: c. 1249 still mandates how we are to approach days of penance
“under pain of sin” not being specifically stated is distraction: absent some excuse, all deliberate disobedience to the law is a form of sin, however minor
@TomCrowe@jdflynn@quantumking_@RejoiceCC late to this, but: the problem is that you’re laser focused on c. 1251 alone
c. 1249 tells us what we are to do on days of penance
c. 1250 tells us Fridays are days of penance
deliberately doing absolutely nothing penitential = disobedience to c. 1249
disobedience = sin ✅
I am irrationally happy with this design, like almost to the point of being mad it’s 2026 and (seemingly) no other bishops’ conference in history ever decided to hire a graphic designer who could have figured this out? A+ simple geometry and use of negative space, 10/10 no notes.
@chesterbelloc3@PWFAM1724 The answer is absolutely yes, and that’s at least half the reason there’s particularly nothing earth-shattering about this. The Pope is letting the Dicastery authorize (or decline to authorize!) the bishop to make this decision, which can still be appealed.
@hf_222222 Well, I think it’s a bit more than that? There’s a deeper shift toward non-violence (turning the other cheek) even as a sort of Christian *obligation*, while refusing to condemn retributive violence as “unjust”. Even if an eye for an eye is just, we are obliged to do better, etc.
@cath_menarion@jdflynn So any *unreasonable* restriction would be manifestly unjust, not in accord with the nature of law, and thus not binding. So “X sacrament cannot be validly celebrated on Mondays” would not actually be able to get off the ground. This doesn’t save the theory, but it helps a lot.
@cath_menarion@jdflynn FWIW, the last time I myself wandered down this theoretical path – which I have since abandoned – I would have said: the inevitable restriction is (as it always must be in law) “an ordinance of reason” (directed in this case to the salvation of souls).
@JeffCassman@BackwardsFeet My dude. I am about as “all in” on Aquinas as one can get, and this is laughable.
Aquinas frequently relied upon ancient biology and cosmology, and so is – indisputably –“outdated” in those respects.
The weapons of war available to us today are also wildly different, ∴ etc.
@CatholicPods@JLLiedl there’s no way this is correct as stated, otherwise it would lead to saying that the persons of the Trinity lack real unity
but go ahead, explain how men and women are in any meaningful sense remotely unequal *without* falling back on Aristotelian biology
@BigBlobApe@BackwardsFeet@saturnine_grace I mean, right, that’s the charitable interpretation
but then the entire gotcha just… evaporates, upon affirming that an intrinsically evil act can never (by definition) be blessed/sanctified
if the act can be good, under any circumstances, then it’s not intrinsically evil
Fr Murray argues that the argument of “grave necessity cannot be asserted” in light of the Holy See’s offer to continue dialogue with the @SSPXEN & the existence of the traditional orders for those seeking to be traditional priests.
Via @JoeDMcClane