Archbishop Forte lists 5 key synod issues

[LongingSoul]

How many times do they get to “have gone wrong”? If they made a mistake then they need to correct it. And no they shouoldnt be allowed to become godparent or such. Nor should they be allowed to go to communion. They can go to Mass and once they correct the mistake, then they can do those things.

The Church is saying that the approach that you’re on your own until you’re worthy of what we have… is not fully Christlike. It’s considering whether there are crumbs to be offered to those who want healing and renewal. What those crumbs will be will come to light through the discernment of the Church.

I have always hated the phrase ‘there but for the grace of God go I’. Are you telling us that parent who lose their child to cancer didnt have the Grace of God? That he rewards some and punishes others? There is no such thing as “free will”?

The spirit of the statement is meant to be an antidote to spiritual pride. It’s actually a prayer for the other that says I’m not worthy of Gods glory either so I offer it through my hand to you in prayer.

 

[LongingSoul]

That part, at least, is off the table, so to speak. Pope Francis has stated that there will be no changes to doctrines.

There will never be any change to your DNA either. However, you will change physically as you get older.

 

[Brendan]

The Church is saying that the approach that you’re on your own until you’re worthy of what we have… is not fully Christlike. It’s considering whether there are crumbs to be offered to those who want healing and renewal. What those crumbs will be will come to light through the discernment of the Church…

Interesting accusation. Could you point out the encyclical where the Church states that?

 

[Brendan]

There will never be any change to your DNA either. However, you will change physically as you get older.

But my DNA is not me, so the analogy fails. DNA and personhood are two separate entities.

Doctrine is doctrine, and if the Pope promises that it will not change ( and I presume we agree that an ‘evolution’ is a change), why do you not believe him?

 

[LongingSoul]

Interesting accusation. Could you point out the encyclical where the Church states that?

That’s what the point of including the question in the Synod on the Family is.

1. The synod father also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Some synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present regulations, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as the teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others expressed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).

1. Some synod fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons or those living together can have fruitful recourse to a spiritual communion. Others raised the question as to why, then, they cannot have access “sacramentally”. As a result, the synod fathers requested that further theological study in the matter might point out the specifics of the two forms and their association with the theology of marriage. - Relatio Synodi 2014

 

[LongingSoul]

But my DNA is not me, so the analogy fails. DNA and personhood are two separate entities.

Doctrine is doctrine, and if the Pope promises that it will not change ( and I presume we agree that an ‘evolution’ is a change), why do you not believe him?

If I thought that Pope Francis meant what you say he meant ie. that the current expression of the doctrine can never develop… I’d have to think he was nuts for even inviting the issue to synod discussion.

 

[Brendan]

That’s what the point of including the question in the Synod on the Family is.

It still does not cover any claim that anyone is ‘on their own until they are worthy’. Who exactly is claiming that?

 

[LongingSoul]

It still does not cover any claim that anyone is ‘on their own until they are worthy’. Who exactly is claiming that?

‘On their own’ as being barred from any of the grace of the Sacraments.

 

[Corki]

If I thought that Pope Francis meant what you say he meant ie. that the current expression of the doctrine can never develop… I’d have to think he was nuts for even inviting the issue to synod discussion.

Well, several of the Synod Fathers have stated that the original intent was to explore how to do a better job at bringing parishioners in irregular marriage situations back into full Communion. How can a pastor make sure that those who might benefit from a tribunal investigation, seek it? How can we do a better job at catechizing about marriage to (hopefully) keep more Catholics from entering into these invalid unions? How can we streamline the annulment process? etc. The discussion got hi-jacked by some Bishops and the media into a discussion of pushing the limits of doctrine.

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, several of the Synod Fathers have stated that the original intent was to explore how to do a better job at bringing parishioners in irregular marriage situations back into full Communion. How can a pastor make sure that those who might benefit from a tribunal investigation, seek it? How can we do a better job at catechizing about marriage to (hopefully) keep more Catholics from entering into these invalid unions? How can we streamline the annulment process? etc. The discussion got hi-jacked by some Bishops and the media into a discussion of pushing the limits of doctrine.

I think that is revisionist because what happened was that Pope Francis invited Cardinal Kasper to present his ideas as a catalyst for examination of the situation in regards to the Churchs pastoral care of certain families. It was the tidal swell of those wanting to demonise and discredit Kasper even before the synod began, that upset the process and brought out the extremes. Pope Francis invited Cardinal Kasper.

 

[Brendan]

‘On their own’ as being barred from any of the grace of the Sacraments.

There is no bar, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is available to all who repent of any sexual act done with those who are not their legitimate spouse, and do so with a desire to avoid such sin in the future.

That is clear from the teachings of the Church.

The Church DOES offer healing, true healing, but the healing is being rejected.

 

[Brendan]

I think that is revisionist because what happened was that Pope Francis invited Cardinal Kasper to present his ideas as a catalyst for examination of the situation in regards to the Churchs pastoral care of certain families. It was the tidal swell of those wanting to demonise and discredit Kasper even before the synod began, that upset the process and brought out the extremes. Pope Francis invited Cardinal Kasper.

As all the Synod Fathers are invited. Did you think that discussion of the issue meant that +Kasper’s proposal could not be rebutted? Was Cardinal Kasper to be the only voice? If so, as you have pointed out, why even have the Synod?

 

[LongingSoul]

As all the Synod Fathers are invited. Did you think that discussion of the issue meant that +Kasper’s proposal could not be rebutted? Was Cardinal Kasper to be the only voice? If so, as you have pointed out, why even have the Synod?

Again, that is revisionist. The only rebuttal offered by armchair theologians amounted to ‘nope. Can’t be discussed. Can’t be examined. End of story’. What happened was a campaign to discredit Cardinal Kasper in order to silence his ideas. He was from Germany. Nothing good comes out of the German Church. Their in it for money. He was a heretic. He’s a racist. etc etc.

Pope Francis invited Cardinal Kasper knowing fully what his ideas were and that warranted some respect.

 

[Brendan]

Again, that is revisionist. The only rebuttal offered by armchair theologians amounted to 'nope. Can’t be discussed. .

Huh? Cardinal Burke and several others published a full book on the theological errors involved in +Kasper’s opinion.

You can order yourself a copy here
amazon.com.au/Remaining-Truth-Christ-Marriage-Communion-ebook/dp/B00O4BU9WU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435631306&sr=8-1&keywords=Remaining+in+the+Truth+of+Christ%3A

To ignore that response would be, as you say, revisionist. And it does substantially more that state the topic cannot be discussed. Rather, it very specifically points out the flaws in +Kasper’s reasoning.

 

[LongingSoul]

Huh? Cardinal Burke and several others published a full book on the theological errors involved in +Kasper’s opinion.

You can order yourself a copy here
amazon.com.au/Remaining-Truth-Christ-Marriage-Communion-ebook/dp/B00O4BU9WU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435631306&sr=8-1&keywords=Remaining+in+the+Truth+of+Christ%3A

To ignore that response would be, as you say, revisionist. And it does substantially more that state the topic cannot be discussed. Rather, it very specifically points out the flaws in +Kasper’s reasoning.

I said ‘armchair’ theologians like us who are discussing and debating the legitimate ideas of legitimate theologians. Cardinal Burke and the other theologians are legitimate but how many of the armchair theologians here are actually presenting those legitimate theological opinions as part of their argument? How many have read and quoted from the book you mention? Each time I’ve ever tried to give my thoughts on the different aspects that have been raised as areas the legitimate theologians raised… its rebutted with anything but theology. Nope, can’t be discussed. Closed book. End of story. That’s all we get. Why not quote some of the legitimate literature that you are drawing on for a proper theological debate?

 

[adrift]

The fourth is the “ecumenical and interreligious spirit”; the fifth is “the centrality of the person, which also leads to a greater involvement of women. They must have more space in the internal decision-making processes of the Church” and “be involved in the formation of priests.”

I thought mother’s did that already.

 

[graciew]

I don t mean to be disruptive , just that I could nit find the original or complete version of these 5 points and it sounds that point 2 might add some light. Has anybody found it ? Thank you and excuse my interruption …

 

[Brendan]

Each time I’ve ever tried to give my thoughts on the different aspects that have been raised as areas the legitimate theologians raised… its rebutted with anything but theology.

With whom? Here? My arguments were theological.
So were most of the ones that I have seen here

 

[Ender]

Each time I’ve ever tried to give my thoughts on the different aspects that have been raised as areas the legitimate theologians raised… its rebutted with anything but theology.

Your comments are simply generalities implying an approach that cannot be sustained because of concrete obstacles. The rebuttals are based on specific doctrines, and are theologically irrefutable…that is the problem for those who suggest people in irregular marriages should be allowed to receive communion. That position can be adopted only if the doctrines change, something Francis said will not happen.

Nope, can’t be discussed. Closed book. End of story. That’s all we get. Why not quote some of the legitimate literature that you are drawing on for a proper theological debate?

Here’s a fairly straightforward presentation of the problem. How is the sin of adultery to be forgiven if the person involved has no intention of stopping?*to become reconciled with God presupposes and includes detaching oneself consciously and with determination from the sin into which one has fallen. *(JPII)You want a theological discussion so start with this; it’s about as basic an explanation of the problem as one could find. What is the theological solution here?

Ender

 

[GUYMAN]

Part of the problem in moving forward is in seeing those in our midst who aren’t perfect as the ‘foxes’ among us. We aren’t talking of those who espouse ideological opposition to Church doctrine like the ones you mention who have car stickers like ‘Catholics for Choice.’ We are talking about people who have grown in faith and realise they have gone wrong, but because of having created marriages and families that can’t be easily dismantled… they are trapped outside of the Church life.

I know myself and I believe most other Catholics who are in communion with the Church, strongly feel the sense of ‘there but for the grace of God go I’, when it comes to appreciating our ‘communion’. Had I not been brought up in the family I did, or be blessed with some other channel of the beauty of Catholic teaching… I can very easily see myself making much poorer choices in my desire to know human love when I was younger.

I hope that people can allow deeper examination of the proposal of a ‘penitential path’ for those who find themselves trapped by circumstances, so that we can recognise their growth in faith as Catholics as meaningful, rather than memorialise their earlier sins in stone at the door of the Church.

So well put. And I happen to believe that divorce is a sin - who among us does not sin?