Is Marriage based upon religion?

[Morr]

It's published by the Church, but it is not an example of the Pope acting in official capacity, it's not written and published by the Pope, he's not using that title as authorization.

The popes use the title, regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. Makes no difference.

Not in a capacity for authorizing anything, no.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The popes use the title, regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. Makes no difference.

Not in a capacity for authorizing anything, no.

Yes, yes they do. Whether you want to accept that or not it's truly irrelevant.

[Geilinor]

No, but it can be if you want it to.

[Galloism]

Again, the Annuario Pontificio is an official document, published by the Vatican, every year.

I can see that you are going to hold fast to your erroneous ideas so this is a big whatever. *shrug* Anyways, here: “Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae / Addressed by the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, Men and Women Religious, Lay Faithful, and All People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life.”
“Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women Religious, and all the Lay Faithful, on Christian Love.”
Anniversary documents commenting on and celebrating previous encyclical letters:
Citation Styles for documents commenting on and celebrating the anniversaries of previous encyclical letters:
"Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis of the Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II, to the Bishops, Priests, Religious Families, Sons and Daughters of the Church and All People of Good Will for the Twentieth Anniversary of Populorum Progressio."
MLA (7th ed.)
John, Paul II. Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis of the Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II , to the Bishops, Priests, Religious Families, Sons and Daughters of the Church and All People of Good Will for the Twentieth Anniversary of Populorum Progressio. Washington, D.C: Office of Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1988. Print.
Turabian (6th ed.)
Catholic Church and John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis of the Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II , to the Bishops, Priests, Religious Families, Sons and Daughters of the Church and All People of Good Will for the Twentieth Anniversary of Populorum Progressio. Washington, D.C.: Office of Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1988.

It's published by the Church, but it is not an example of the Pope acting in official capacity, it's not written and published by the Pope, he's not using that title as authorization.

Question.

How is an official document, published by the church itself, of which the Pope is the dictatorial head, not official from the pope?

[Morr]

Not in a capacity for authorizing anything, no.

Yes, yes they do. Whether you want to accept that or not it's truly irrelevant.

Then you won't have a problem presenting an example (which this isn't, as I've already explained--an example is a document requiring Papal authorization using that title in the authorization part).

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, yes they do. Whether you want to accept that or not it's truly irrelevant.

Then you won't have a problem presenting an example (which this isn't, as I've already explained--an example is a document requiring Papal authorization using that title in the authorization part).

Uhhhh, that's not required to make it official. I have presented proof enough. If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. It makes one of the positions held here rather ignorant. Guess which is it? Clue: Not mine.

[Morr]

Then you won't have a problem presenting an example (which this isn't, as I've already explained--an example is a document requiring Papal authorization using that title in the authorization part).

Uhhhh, that's not required to make it official. I have presented proof enough. If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. It makes one of the positions held here rather ignorant. Guess which is it? Clue: Not mine.

No, you're right. I guess I should have qualified more explicitly what I meant by "official" in my initial post on this topic: by, "official", I meant something held to express the Church's position on something, which can only be done through Ecumenical Councils, Papal Bulls, and the like. Regardless, we're making a mountain out of a molehill, since the term "pontifex" was just the Latin translation of the Greek "episkopos", which is used in religious contexts both positive and negative in the NT (to describe the Jewish high priests who sway the people to persecute Christ, and also to describe the Apostles of the Church).

[Galloism]

Uhhhh, that's not required to make it official. I have presented proof enough. If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. It makes one of the positions held here rather ignorant. Guess which is it? Clue: Not mine.

No, you're right. I guess I should have qualified more explicitly what I meant by "official" in my initial post on this topic: by, "official", I meant something held to express the Church's position on something, which can only be done through Ecumenical Councils, Papal Bulls, and the like. Regardless, we're making a mountain out of a molehill, since the term "pontifex" was just the Latin translation of the Greek "episkopos", which is used in religious contexts both positive and negative in the NT (to describe the Jewish high priests who sway the people to persecute Christ, and also to describe the Apostles of the Church).

Let's keep in mind that her original claim stands uncontested:

That the Church is the official continuation of the Church founded by God is the official position of every single Church with has Apostolic Succession, and it is stated very clearly in the New Testament. Christ is a fulfillment of OT, he is the Passover Lamb who saves us by marking our doors with his blood, he's the Jewish Messiah.



Subscribe.



The Pope's hat wasn't even invented until several hundred years after the demise of paganism.

The Pope's hat comes from the Mithraic tradition, predating Christianity. Trinitarian tradition is also of pagan origin. Church offices are mirrored from Roman lore. Shit, even the title the Pope uses of Supreme Pontiff is from Rome's emperor worship.

So, you were telling us what again? Ah yes, nothing of import.

The Pope uses a title derived from the pagan roman emperor worship, much as it absorbed other pagan beliefs and holidays into itself.

[Grunberg-Ludbach]

The simple answer is no.

Marriage has been around in many cultures, as it signifies a love between two people. In some cultures, its more than two people. In many cultures, marriage became so important that it intertwined with religion, churches, and religious doctrine.

That's why Catholics are under the impression that marriage is a holy matrimony overseen by God, or why Hindus treat marriage as something very sacrosanct.

[Morr]

The Pope uses a title derived from the pagan roman emperor worship, much as it absorbed other pagan beliefs and holidays into itself.

The Pope uses a title that means "greatest priest". Notice that the Emperor was not the Pope, in fact the emperors down the road often had major conflicts with the pope.

[Galloism]

The Pope uses a title derived from the pagan roman emperor worship, much as it absorbed other pagan beliefs and holidays into itself.

The Pope uses a title that means "greatest priest". Notice that the Emperor was not the Pope, in fact the emperors down the road often had major conflicts with the pope.

Then why did you spend so much time and effort trying to prove that a title used by the Pope regularly wasn't an official title of the pope?

If the title wasn't a problem, why work so hard to disprove it's a real title?

[Morr]

Then why did you spend so much time and effort trying to prove that a title used by the Pope regularly wasn't an official title of the pope?

It was never used in any official capacity by the Pope. It was applied to the Pope, but as a secondary title, not as the primary term for the office, since the authority of the office never invoked that title. She was implying that he was some sort of successor to the pagan office, which he clearly wasn't.

If the title wasn't a problem, why work so hard to disprove it's a real title?

Mainly because it was the only part of my post she actually could muster any counterargument to, so I engaged her out of courtesy, rather than focusing on her failure to answer all the issues of substance.

[Danton]

As with virtually any topic along these lines, the answer will simply rest on one's beliefs, at least for most people. We can sit here all day long and argue about it, but the thing that will most commonly determine one's response is what their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are.

I define marriage as an intimate and complementing union between a man and a woman, the purpose of which is to reflect the relationship between us and God and to serve Him. Although people have succeeded for millennia at marring the divine purpose and function of marriage, this definition reflects the God-ordained ideal for marriage from the beginning.

[Galloism]

Then why did you spend so much time and effort trying to prove that a title used by the Pope regularly wasn't an official title of the pope?

It was never used in any official capacity by the Pope. It was applied to the Pope, but as a secondary title, not as the primary term for the office, since the authority of the office never invoked that title. She was implying that he was some sort of successor to the pagan office, which he clearly wasn't.

When church communications signed by the pope bear the title of Supreme Pontiff, it's about as official as it gets.

If the title wasn't a problem, why work so hard to disprove it's a real title?

Mainly because it was the only part of my post she actually could muster any counterargument to, so I engaged her out of courtesy, rather than focusing on her failure to answer all the issues of substance.

So you are contesting that it's a title for the Roman Emperor, or you just saying it's not a problem that the pope adopted a title used by pagan roman emperors?

[Junglalia]

Honestly, I think marriage should be able to be done by anyone, and recognized by all parties-church, states, etc
and that both genders get equal power in the relationship

[Morr]

Not in a capacity for authorizing anything, no.

Yes, yes they do. Whether you want to accept that or not it's truly irrelevant.

I will accept it if you can show me but one example.

[Galloism]

Honestly, I think marriage should be able to be done by anyone, and recognized by all parties-church, states, etc
and that both genders get equal power in the relationship

It's supremely practical for the state to register those who can perform marriages to make sure they're real people performing these marriages.

[Morr]

When church communications signed by the pope bear the title of Supreme Pontiff, it's about as official as it gets.

Decrees from the Pope--which are really what are as official as it gets, since Papal Bulls are what are infallible, not regulator communications--are signed by the term Episkopus rather than Pontiff.

So you are contesting that it's a title for the Roman Emperor, or you just saying it's not a problem that the pope adopted a title used by pagan roman emperors?

I'm saying in the pagan sense, the supreme pontiff was the emperor, so it is hardly a continuation of a pagan tradition there--if the Emperor were the Pope, you'd have a point, but he wasn't. I'm also saying using the term is not a problem, since it is simply Latin for exactly what the Pope is.

[TestIsland]

I have always seen marriage as a social contract, usually in the form of a ceremony to tell society that persons X and Y are living together and should be treated as a single entity in most social matters. That is why most marriages (religious or secular) require the presence of one or more witnesses.

I imagine there were forms of marriage long before any of our current religions came to be, especially observing the long-term pairing off of individuals in many animal species.

[Galloism]

When church communications signed by the pope bear the title of Supreme Pontiff, it's about as official as it gets.

Decrees from the Pope--which are really what are as official as it gets, since Papal Bulls are what are infallible, not regulator communications--are signed by the term Episkopus rather than Pontiff.

He clearly consents to use that title, as he signs communications which bear that as his title.

So you are contesting that it's a title for the Roman Emperor, or you just saying it's not a problem that the pope adopted a title used by pagan roman emperors?

I'm saying in the pagan sense, the supreme pontiff was the emperor, so it is hardly a continuation of a pagan tradition there--

Yes - yes it is. It's adopting a title used by a pagan roman emperor in his capacity as a pagan religious leader, adopted by the pope, in continuation of pagan roman tradition.

if the Emperor were the Pope, you'd have a point,

That really has nothing to do with it.

but he wasn't. I'm also saying using the term is not a problem, since it is simply Latin for exactly what the Pope is.

Of course, one should be careful when adopting titles used by previous authority figures. For instance, although Fuhrer literally means "leader" or "guide", signing communications as the fuhrer would be extremely inappropriate even for the president of Germany. It comes with certain negative connotations and adoption of such a title implies your being at least ok with the last guy who used that title.

[Problemo]

One of my uncles swears that marriage is based on religion... especially on the institution of Hell.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, yes they do. Whether you want to accept that or not it's truly irrelevant.

I will accept it if you can show me but one example.

I have provided ample proof. I am not going to continue on this merry-go-round just because you can't accept the evidence. That's your problem, not mine.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Then why did you spend so much time and effort trying to prove that a title used by the Pope regularly wasn't an official title of the pope?

It was never used in any official capacity by the Pope. It was applied to the Pope, but as a secondary title, not as the primary term for the office, since the authority of the office never invoked that title. She was implying that he was some sort of successor to the pagan office, which he clearly wasn't.

If the title wasn't a problem, why work so hard to disprove it's a real title?

Mainly because it was the only part of my post she actually could muster any counterargument to, so I engaged her out of courtesy, rather than focusing on her failure to answer all the issues of substance.

Look, once again. The Pope's coronation tiara, one of his many ''hats'' comes from the Mithraic and Attis tradition of the Phrygian religion. There, I answered my other claim. And I never said anything about paganism. The truth is Supreme Pontiff, one of the titles used by the popes, comes from the pagan tradition of emperor worship of Rome.

Nice to see you back peddaling yet again, although it has gotten tiresome.

[A man is no one]

The state's only deciding how to define state marriage, it does not and cannot define religious marriage. That's defined by the churches, as it's always been.

[SaintB]

So far as I can tell marriage has been around about as long as civilization, maybe even before that. It has nothing to do with modern religion beyond the superstitions, blessings, and ceremonies.