Skip to main content

What are the extents and limits of the Commandment to Honour Thy Father and Thy Mother? - Update 2

Image
By

 +

JMJ

For reference attached is a table outlining the logical summaries of the authors cited in the  article on Honouring Thy Father and Mother that I posted last year (link). 

P^3

 

ID

Source

Year

Excerpt

Summary

Logical Formula

1

Handbook of Moral Theology – Prummer

1955

There are two limits to be placed to the obedience due to parents even in lawful matters: I) one of duration, in so far as the duty ceases once the child after attaining his majority or emancipation begins to live away from the parental home; b) in the choice of a state of life, and therefore even minors are free to choose in this matter and parents commit sin by compelling their children to embrace any particular state of life.

  • Obedience due to parents

  • Ceases once the child

  • Attains majority or emancipation

  • begins to live away from the parental home

(Age of Majority [OR] Emancipation) [AND][NOT] (living at home) = Duty of obedience inactive


In the case of an adult (age of majority) or emancipated child living at home the formula logically changes to:


(Age of Majority [OR] Emancipation) [AND] (living at home) = Duty of obedience active

2

Moral Theology (Fr. Heribert Jone, Transl. Fr. Adelman)

1955, 1961

Disobedience is a grievous sin if it concerns an important matter and the parents have given a real command. In educational matters the obligation of obedience lasts until the children come of age. ... Even adult children, as long as they stay at home, must obey in all things necessary for domestic order, e.g., to return home at a reasonable hour at night.

  • Even adult children

  • as long as they stay at home,

  • must obey in all things necessary for domestic order,

(Age of Majority) [AND] (living at home) = Duty of obedience active

3

A Brief Catechism for Adults (Fr. Cogan)

1951, 1958

3. How long is a child obliged to obey his parents? Until approximately the 21st birthday, or until he or she leaves home to be married or to become a priest or sister.

  • child obliged to obey his parents?

  • Until approximately the 21st birthday,

  • or until he or she leaves home

  • to be married or to become a priest or sister.

(Age of Majority ) [OR]([NOT] ((living at home) [AND] (married [OR] priest [OR] sister))) = Duty of obedience inactive


Alternative Logical Presentation is complicated by the conditions under which a child below the age of majority is released from the duty of obedience. In order for this to be true, they have to leave to be either married or enter the religious life.


([NOT](Age of Majority)) [OR] ((Lives at home) [AND] [NOT] (married [OR] priest [OR] sister)) = Duty of obedience active.


Leaving aside the change in a state of life, the logic is simplified to:


[NOT](Age of Majority) = Duty of obedience active.

4

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1992

2217 As long as a child lives at home with his parents, the child should obey ... As they grow up, children should continue to respect their parents. ... Obedience toward parents ceases with the emancipation of the children ...

  • As long as a child lives at home with his parents,

  • the child should obey

  • Obedience toward parents ceases with the emancipation of the children ...

(Age of Majority) [AND] (Living at home) = Duty of obedience active


If it is ‘or’ as noted by Cogan, then a contradiction arises in certain cases and the true meaning of the means by which the statements are combined must satisfy all conditions without creating an incongruity.







Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

By
 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...
Post a Comment
Read more

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

By
 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX Transfers

By
+ JMJ Eponymous flow posted the following list of transfers etc. Source: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2020/04/castling-of-leadership-at-sspx.html The departures Bishop Bernard Fellay, the third Superior General until 2018, leaves the General House in Menzingen and moves to the Seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in the USA. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, suffering from ill health, is being referred to the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecene as a retreat. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, until now Secretary General of the General House, becomes a professor at the seminary in Ecene. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, until now Rector at the Seminary of the Heart of Jesus in Zaitzkofen, moves to the district of Germany. Fr. Jürgen Wegner, until now district superior of the DISTRICT USA, moves to the district of Austria. Fr. Philippe Brunet, until now Superior of the Autonomous House of Spain-Portugal, becomes professor at the Seminary U.L.F. and co-saviour of La Reja in...
2 comments
Read more

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

By
+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized ma...
Post a Comment
Read more

Called It: Vortex and Niles Respond to SSPX's Update on SSPX Independent Review Board

By
 + JMJ       In a post that was written days ago, but published this morning - I wrote: While I'm confident that Voris et al will try to spin this to suit their narrative, Plan to Protect has been in the development years before Voris launched the campaign against the SSPX.  Well true to form during this morning's CMTV briefing has the following headline: SSPX Lack of Transparency Society slammed for refusing to publish names of review board. Here's what Ms. Niles had to say: The SSPX is being slammed for lack of transparency. In a Tuesday update to its sex abuse review board the SSPX finally published a description of its review board members. While failing to actually publish their names. Victims have requested full disclosure of identifies to assure no conflict of interest. But leadership has refused unlike many dioceses who are transparent about their review board membership. I have some time, so let's unpack this soundbite and think critically. Don'...
Post a Comment
Read more