On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Between truth and falsehood, between good and bad, there is no graduality,” the Cardinal said.
J_Peterson said:
With all due respect to the Cardinal, he is simply wrong here. If what he says is true then my experience as a Christian is false. Maybe I should have packed it in a long time ago?
Click to expand...
You seem to miss the truth of the Cardinal’s statement. Something can’t be both true and false at the same time. A marriage can’t be both valid and invalid, or a little valid and a little invalid at the same time. Relativism always has been condemned by the Church .

You know the old saying: A woman can’t be just a little pregnant.

Now, it’s of course true, thanks be to God, that a person can grow gradually in strength, wisdom, love and faith. That’s a given, but is not what the Cardinal was talking about.

If what you were taught is contrary to all that, then, yes, your experience as a Christian should be very critically re-examined.
 
KSU said:
“Between truth and falsehood, between good and bad, there is no graduality,” the Cardinal said.

You seem to miss the truth of the Cardinal’s statement. Something can’t be both true and false at the same time. A marriage can’t be both valid and invalid, or a little valid and a little invalid at the same time. Relativism always has been condemned by the Church.
Click to expand...
Or, as Bob Dylan put it …

“When something’s not right it’s wrong.” 😉
 
KSU said:
“Between truth and falsehood, between good and bad, there is no graduality,” the Cardinal said.

You seem to miss the truth of the Cardinal’s statement. Something can’t be both true and false at the same time. A marriage can’t be both valid and invalid, or a little valid and a little invalid at the same time. Relativism always has been condemned by the Church .
Click to expand...
In the article, the Cardinal is quoted as saying the Church does not recognize a second marriage but also says a second marriage is in “objective truth” sinful. What second marriage? How is it the “objective truth” that a second marriage is both sinful and isn’t, as he correctly states the Church provides?

Is this unambiguous? These are only questions that arose while reading the article.
 
sarah_j said:
Or, as Bob Dylan put it …

“When something’s not right it’s wrong.” 😉
Click to expand...
And a marriage is valid, or invalid, except it isn’t known until a tribunal makes a ruling, which even then may or may not be right. Then, depending on the knowledge and intent of the parties, having sex in the context of a second marriage may or may not be gravely sinful, at least until the parties are informed and understand they are committing mortal sin, unless we are talking objective mortal sin, (as opposed to actual mortal sin), in which case it is always gravely sinful, again unless the validity of the first marriage does not exist and the second marriage was the only valid marriage.

Simple black and white. As easy to get as Schrodinger’s cat.
 
Thomas_White said:
In the article, the Cardinal is quoted as saying the Church does not recognize a second marriage but also says a second marriage is in “objective truth” sinful. What second marriage? How is it the “objective truth” that a second marriage is both sinful and isn’t, as he correctly states the Church provides?

Is this unambiguous? These are only questions that arose while reading the article.
Click to expand...
Guess it would’ve been 100% accurate if he’d said **" a so-called second marriage"
but I think everyone knows what he was talking about.
  • Almost* everyone, that is.
 
Thomas_White said:
I agree. The question of the OP is how will the more liberal bishops respond? I don’t know the answer except it should be interesting. Maybe someone could give their view on this?
Click to expand...
I imagine that Cardinal Kasper will probably restate his idea since it has been a long time in the making around the world of parish priests and diocesan Bishops.

It has to be borne in mind that the synod works this way though. The wide range of positions is presented and hopefully through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit something positive can grow from the communion.
 
Thomas_White said:
In the article, the Cardinal is quoted as saying the Church does not recognize a second marriage but also says a second marriage is in “objective truth” sinful. What second marriage? How is it the “objective truth” that a second marriage is both sinful and isn’t, as he correctly states the Church provides?

Is this unambiguous? These are only questions that arose while reading the article.
Click to expand...
Yes, Thomas, it is unambiguous. Living in an alleged valid second marriage is sinful precisely because it doesn’t exist. The Cardinal was speaking to orthodox Catholics who know what he means by a “second marriage.”
 
pnewton said:
And a marriage is valid, or invalid, except it isn’t known until a tribunal makes a ruling, which even then may or may not be right. Then, depending on the knowledge and intent of the parties, having sex in the context of a second marriage may or may not be gravely sinful, at least until the parties are informed and understand they are committing mortal sin, unless we are talking objective mortal sin, (as opposed to actual mortal sin), in which case it is always gravely sinful, again unless the validity of the first marriage does not exist and the second marriage was the only valid marriage.

Simple black and white. As easy to get as Schrodinger’s cat.
Click to expand...
I am so glad that you made this post! “Schrodinger’s cat” is exactly what I was thinking… That and, “Should I really attempt a post about Schrödinger’s cat?” You did a better job than I could have done.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
“Strike?” “Counter-punch?” Is this appropriate language for a bishops’ meeting chaired by the Holy Father, or a boxing match?
Click to expand...
Remember it was Gilliam that used those terms not the Synod or us. God Bless, Memaw
 
dans0622 said:
I’m not sure if you are being serious or not…:

Dan
Click to expand...
No, I am not always serious. If you think I am not serious, I probably am not, as in this case.

Likewise, my convoluted post above on marriage, which I believe to be factual, if not weird, addresses the need for this synod. Yes, sin is black and white. Yes, objective realities exist. However, what is not true is that these realities are simplistic. Some are very difficult to understand, which is precisely why we can never, ever know enough to sit in judgment on each other.

The Church proclaims truth and works through love, but how this affects practice is a pastoral matter. Canon law is as much as Moses’ writ of divorce, a way of dealing with the hardness of the human heart.
 
pnewton said:
And a marriage is valid, or invalid, except it isn’t known until a tribunal makes a ruling, which even then may or may not be right. …
Click to expand...
When it comes to a Catholic who attempts a civil marriage (which is the basic context of the Cardinal’s remarks, it seems to me), there is never any question about the validity of that union. It’s clearly and certainly not valid.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
When it comes to a Catholic who attempts a civil marriage (which is the basic context of the Cardinal’s remarks, it seems to me), there is never any question about the validity of that union. It’s clearly and certainly not valid.

Dan
Click to expand...
Yes. When the person is a Catholic, this is true, but even then one must file for the appropriate defect of form. So when the one party is a Catholic, and the marriage is a civil marriage, this on iteration in a series of events, and one that is easier to determine, though that still needs to happen.
 
I hope that no one at the synod will attempt to either change church teaching or to change its implementation in such a way that it amounts to the same thing.

“I said above that the modern tendency of Christians to tinker with Revelation never ceases to amaze me “because it carries such a high cost”. Note that I am not amazed that we humans are changeable in our commitments, or that we sometimes desperately want the truth to be other than it is, or that we can be tempted to be unfaithful to it. No, what amazes me is that we would ever set out to alter what Christ has revealed while still claiming to be Christian.”
The Real Cost of Changing Catholic Teaching on Marriage
 
dans0622 said:
When it comes to a Catholic who attempts a civil marriage (which is the basic context of the Cardinal’s remarks, it seems to me), there is never any question about the validity of that union. It’s clearly and certainly not valid.

Dan
Click to expand...
I don’t envy you, my friend.😉 Being a canon lawyer you must experience great frustration when attempting to correct Dogmatic Relativism: The theory that all the dogmas of the Christian faith are time- and circumstance-conditioned.
 
KSU said:
Yes, Thomas, it is unambiguous. Living in an alleged valid second marriage is sinful precisely because it doesn’t exist. The Cardinal was speaking to orthodox Catholics who know what he means by a “second marriage.”
Click to expand...
Almost everyone knows what the Cardinal means, he was speaking to orthodox Catholics who know what he means by a so-called “second marriage”, or almost everyone that is?

It is touching, it is, these charitable replies to a comment trying to provide a response to the OP’s question: “How will the more liberal bishops respond”?

Anyway, I was wondering how y’all would know a person in a so-called “second marriage”, as understood by everyone (well, almost everyone), is in the objective state of mortal sin by that fact alone?
 
Casilda said:
“A definition of ‘conservative’ is the resistance to change and new ideas.”

Exactly. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. No innovations, no new ideas…
Click to expand...
The question is whether OUR UNDERSTANDING of God, aught to be the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

I think its fair to say our understanding of God has come a long way since monks were whipping themselves in the streets to make the plague go away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top