Cardinal Kasper: 'Growing Majority' in Synod Support Divorce-Remarriage Proposal

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good old Card. Pell. Love him. Hopefully his calm truth will have the effect of shutting down all the doomsaying threads.
 
LongingSoul said:
Good old Card. Pell. Love him. Hopefully his calm truth will have the effect of shutting down all the doomsaying threads.
Click to expand...
He also said:
"Our task now is to ask people to pause, to pray, to catch their breath, to realize there’s going to be no abandonment of Catholic doctrine, and to work to diminish the divisions and to prevent any radicalization of different factions or points of view," he said.
Click to expand...
 
LongingSoul said:
Good old Card. Pell. Love him. Hopefully his calm truth will have the effect of shutting down all the doomsaying threads.
Click to expand...
He is a pretty neat guy. I do not think anyone really believes communion will ever be wide open. I do think it is good to have that on the table though just so the barriers can be examined. In other words, why is it we have being denying communion to people in second marriages. Perhaps in this way, other options can be explored. This is what the Holy Father wanted the synod to do.
 
pnewton said:
He is a pretty neat guy. I do not think anyone really believes communion will ever be wide open. I do think it is good to have that on the table though just so the barriers can be examined. In other words, why is it we have being denying communion to people in second marriages. Perhaps in this way, other options can be explored. This is what the Holy Father wanted the synod to do.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. It is and important issue and it’s actually been discussed quietly at the coalface (Parish Priests and Diocesan Bishops) for at least 30 years that I know of. I have an uncle and cousin who are Parish Priests and have been quietly privvy to the occasional thing prior to them coming to public light such as this.

I tend towards a conservative treatment of the issue (not radical conservative) but someone had to represent the question for revisiting the issue from a truly heartfelt position. That’s why I think Card. Kaspar was a good choice of the Pope. Prior to the synod, in Sept. Card. Kasper wrote the following…
What such reflections mean for the question of divorced and remarried Catholics is now under discussion in advance of the forthcoming Synod of Bishops. I do not have a final answer on this question. It is the responsibility of the synod together with the pope to make these decisions. In my last consistory with the pope, however, I did with his agreement propose some modest reflections on this urgent issue.
Click to expand...
**No theologian, not even the pope, can change the doctrine of the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage. **On the contrary, we all have reason to help and support people to be faithful to marriage for their own good and for the good of their children. So doctrine cannot be changed and will not be changed. But doctrine must be applied with prudence in a just and equitable way to concrete and often complex situations. For these situations are very different. There is no one typical case of divorce and remarriage; therefore there cannot be one standard solution for every situation. Discernment is needed, and discernment, prudence and wisdom are the main virtues for a bishop as a pastor. The best cannot always be done, but we should always do the best possible.
Click to expand...
americamagazine.org/issue/message-mercy

I take real issue with Card. Kasper being stalked and vilified in the way he has been. He is not a radical lefty as has been portrayed. He is one of the clergy whose heart is genuinely moved by this real and difficult situation for good and faithful people.
 
One_point said:
So, baptized persons are Christians. That cannot change no matter what. When two baptized persons are (validly) getting married, a sacrament is the result. No natural marriage, their souls are not any more the same as that of pagans or atheists. They belong to Christ and are in the Lord and belong to the church. To claim a natural marriage is to deny what is the meaning of matrimony (marriage between Christians) or meaning of baptism which is indelible and means the person is of the New covenant.
Click to expand...
Of course baptized persons are Christians. As a priest, through ordination, I have an indelible mark. However, if I am in a play and I play a role in which I say Mass in the play, its clearly not valid due to my lack of intent. A baptized person who lacks all faith but marries in the Church might not have the proper intention to enter into a sacrament. But they do have the proper intention to enter into marriage since they could intend all the natural ends of marriage.

Pope Benedict seemed to be of the private opinion that such a situation results in a marriage that is completely invalid. I don’t have a huge problem with that opinion, but I do question how someone without baptism and with no faith can enter into a natural marriage but a baptized person without faith would have a completely invalid marriage.
 
LongingSoul said:
I take real issue with Card. Kasper being stalked and vilified in the way he has been. He is not a radical lefty as has been portrayed. He is one of the clergy whose heart is genuinely moved by this real and difficult situation for good and faithful people.
Click to expand...
Tried, vilified, judged and raked over the coals … by whom? Our good Catholics who should know better. My spirit is in travail, and I know this is highly displeasing to Our Lord.

Yeah, stalking is a very good word.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Of course baptized persons are Christians. As a priest, through ordination, I have an indelible mark. However, if I am in a play and I play a role in which I say Mass in the play, its clearly not valid due to my lack of intent. A baptized person who lacks all faith but marries in the Church might not have the proper intention to enter into a sacrament. But they do have the proper intention to enter into marriage since they could intend all the natural ends of marriage.

Pope Benedict seemed to be of the private opinion that such a situation results in a marriage that is completely invalid. I don’t have a huge problem with that opinion, but I do question how someone without baptism and with no faith can enter into a natural marriage but a baptized person without faith would have a completely invalid marriage.
Click to expand...
Can two validly baptized persons contract a merely natural marriage? Honest question. Is that possible?
 
YoungTradCath said:
Can two validly baptized persons contract a merely natural marriage? Honest question. Is that possible?
Click to expand...
Sure … many do. I ache for a couple family members who are baptized Catholics that got married by a civil “natural” ceremony. That just means the marriage is invalid, unless they wish to convalidate it at some future date by a parish priest. In the eyes of the State, though, they are married.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=472164&highlight=convalidate#post472164
 
Sirach2 said:
Sure … many do. I ache for a couple family members who are baptized Catholics that got married by a civil “natural” ceremony. That just means the marriage is invalid, unless they wish to convalidate it at some future date by a parish priest. In the eyes of the State, though, they are married.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=472164&highlight=convalidate#post472164
Click to expand...
But that isn’t a natural marriage, is it, since they are baptized? Natural and civil are different things.
 
YoungTradCath said:
But that isn’t a natural marriage, is it, since they are baptized? Natural and civil are different things.
Click to expand...
Explain what you mean by “natural.” Would this be a covenant promise of some sort between the two, without a civil or sacramental marriage?
 
Sirach2 said:
Explain what you mean by “natural.” Would this be a covenant promise of some sort between the two, without a civil or sacramental marriage?
Click to expand...
Natural marriage as in marriage that can be contracted between two non-baptized people or a baptized Christian and a non-Christian. These are real marriages intended by God but they are not sacramental. Ie marriage as it existed before Christ elevated matrimony to a Sacrament (these continue today in the situations I mentioned above). I don’t know all the theological ins and outs but this is a real thing. Two Jews, for example, are not sacramentally married yet they are, in fact, married perfectly validly.

It is not a civil thing per se even though that is very often part of it (just as it typically is in sacramental marriages).
 
YoungTradCath said:
Natural marriage as in marriage that can be contracted between two non-baptized people or a baptized Christian and a non-Christian. These are real marriages intended by God but they are not sacramental. Ie marriage as it existed before Christ elevated matrimony to a Sacrament (these continue today in the situations I mentioned above). I don’t know all the theological ins and outs but this is a real thing. Two Jews, for example, are not sacramentally married yet they are, in fact, married perfectly validly.

It is not a civil thing per se even though that is very often part of it (just as it typically is in sacramental marriages).
Click to expand...
Baptism does not guarantee faith. Whilst a contract of marriage between a man and woman might conform to natural law, the covenant of sacramental marriage depends on the degree of faith which appreciates their union as a reflection of Gods relationship with man and Christs relationship with the Church as His bride.

In days gone by, people were culturally infused with this meaning, but in our fractured, disobedient and defiant culture it is likely that some people undertake this ritual out of family expectation or sentimentality or some other motive than with faith.

They were the types of situation that Pope Benedict referred to in his address on the issue in 2005…
“None of us has a ready-made formula, also because situations always differ. I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.”
Click to expand...
 
LongingSoul said:
Baptism does not guarantee faith. Whilst a contract of marriage between a man and woman might conform to natural law, the covenant of sacramental marriage depends on the degree of faith which appreciates their union as a reflection of Gods relationship with man and Christs relationship with the Church as His bride.

In days gone by, people were culturally infused with this meaning, but in our fractured, disobedient and defiant culture it is likely that some people undertake this ritual out of family expectation or sentimentality or some other motive than with faith.

They were the types of situation that Pope Benedict referred to in his address on the issue in 2005…
Click to expand...
Thank you. This doesnt address whether two Christians van contract a merely natural marriage but it does address another related important matter.
 
pnewton said:
The part in parenthesis is the very type of logical (begging the question, to be exact) disconnect that can be examined.
Click to expand...
There is no begging the question here. The catechism defines matrimony sacrament as marriage between BAPTIZED persons. You and others are attempting to redefine that to mean marriage between people who are currently in good standing with the church. BAPTISM is what defines whether the marriage is “in the Lord” or in the natural realm.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
**Of course baptized persons are Christians. ** .
Click to expand...
If you agree that baptized persons are Christians then there is no way you can say that CHRISTIANS together can contract a marriage not “in the Lord” or the New Covenant. That contradicts church teaching.
As a priest, through ordination, I have an indelible mark. However, if I am in a play and I play a role in which I say Mass in the play, its clearly not valid due to my lack of intent. A baptized person who lacks all faith but marries in the Church might not have the proper intention to enter into a sacrament. But they do have the proper intention to enter into marriage since they could intend all the natural ends of marriage.
Click to expand...
The intention matters because the persons are the ones entering the sacrament. Saying it possible for Christians to subjectively define the marriage they enter as Natural instead of New Covenant, you are basically saying that Jesus rule or the marriage “in the lord” is relative. So I can decide that because I am not sure, I and my beloved should enter a “natural marriage” where if things go bad I can divorce and remarry. What relativism is that being introduced in the church? And what basis does it have in church teaching? That is why it was called a totally new direction that the church has never taken. Wonder why? Nowhere in New Testament or Church teaching is it dependant on parties to whether their marriage is natural or sacramental. This depends solely on whethere there is a marriage (intention) and whether the two are in the New Covenant or not. You cannot subjectively decide that you are in New Covenant but the New Covenant does not govern your life. 🤷 That is contradiction. So the New covenant applies to New Covenant people. If the two are New Covenant people, their marriage is a new Covenant marriage. No subjectivity can exclude New Covenant.
Pope Benedict seemed to be of the private opinion that such a situation results in a marriage that is completely invalid. I don’t have a huge problem with that opinion, but I do question how someone without baptism and with no faith can enter into a natural marriage but a baptized person without faith would have a completely invalid marriage
Click to expand...
Because the baptized person belongs to the New Covenant and not to the World. The New Covenant cannot just be taken off like a shirt. Baptism is indelible.
 
LongingSoul said:
Baptism does not guarantee faith. **Whilst a contract of marriage between a man and woman might conform to natural law, the covenant of sacramental marriage depends on the degree of faith **which appreciates their union as a reflection of Gods relationship with man and Christs relationship with the Church as His bride.
In days gone by, people were culturally infused with this meaning, but in our fractured, disobedient and defiant culture it is likely that some people undertake this ritual out of family expectation or sentimentality or some other motive than with faith.

They were the types of situation that Pope Benedict referred to in his address on the issue in 2005…
Click to expand...
Please provide some authority that the sacrament of matrimony comes from the degree of faith or the current state of personal faith.:confused: If you mean the degree of faith can vitiate proper intention, I can go along with that. But the result is invalidity and annulment. Not divorce. Because marriage comes from intention and lack of faith can atleast show it possible that true intention was missing. But the point is the missing intention not the missing faith though it informed by faith. Once we are baptized we have capacity for three theological virtues always in the soul. Such a person should not be viewed as being entirely graceless like any other atheist. Those advocating a true divorce as opposed to invalidity are describing a situation where it up to Christians themselves after baptism whether they belong to New Covenant or not, whether New Covenant binds them or not which seems totally contradictory to the seal of baptism. The only way it works is if the baptism itself is annulled.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Can two validly baptized persons contract a merely natural marriage? Honest question. Is that possible?
Click to expand...
I guess you could say that’s the question. Normally we would say no, two baptized persons always contract a sacramental marriage. Pope Benedict questioned whether lack of faith equated to lack of a sacrament. Since faith isn’t required in any way shape or form for natural marriage, it would seem that might be possible that a baptized person who lacks faith but intends the goods of marriage could enter a natural marriage rather than a sacramental one. Of course, perhaps it simply completely invalid. Its an open theological question.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Can two validly baptized persons contract a merely natural marriage? Honest question. Is that possible?
Click to expand...
Hello,

The common understanding is no, that’s not possible. It is not possible to separate the contract from the sacrament. The Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of St. Pius X state this quite clearly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church certainly supports this as well, although it is not stated in the same manner as in those other catechisms. Here is how the catechism of St. Pius X stated it: "Q: Can the contract be separated from the sacrament in Christian marriage?

A: No, in marriage among Christians the contract cannot be separated from the sacrament, because, for Christians, marriage is nothing else than the natural contract itself, raised by Jesus Christ to the dignity of a sacrament."

Accordingly, you can find theologians who have treated this as a “communis et certa” teaching.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top