M
Michael1978
Guest
What if there was a pastoral practice to allow the consecration of Wheat Thins and Kool-Aid, would that not change the underlying doctrine?
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Exactly the point! I was trying to show that this statement, “Doctrine IS changed if the pastoral practice attached to it is changed,” is not a universal truth (or truth at all). It is reflexive reasoning. A leads to B therefore* B* leads to A. Crossing the Lincoln tunnel from New York puts one in New Jersey. Therefore if someone is in New Jersey, they had to get there through the Lincoln Tunnel???
That is the opinion of some Cardinals at this synod. It is not the opinion of all Cardinals at this synod. The simple fact that you have to insert the adjective “practical”, as in “practical change in doctrine,” should be a good indication that this is not black and white.
P
pnewton
Guest
And this proves that a change in pastoral practice can lead to a change (actually a contradiction) of doctrine, that is, if Wheat-Thins are not properly made. I really do not know what kind of water is used or how they are baked.
But for example, baked breads with leaven would be a change in practice without any change in doctrine.
M
Michael1978
Guest
Practical, as in the actual use or doing, not theoretical. If the Church allows communion to the divorced and remarried as a matter of pastoral practice, then the Church is changing doctrine in it’s application and practice. If the Church allows homosexuals to marry as a matter of pastoral practice, then the Church is changing doctrine in it’s application and practice. If the Church limits communion to one species or the other as a matter of pastoral practice, the Church is NOT changing doctrine since the Church has NEVER taught that both species are required.
M
Michael1978
Guest
Why is that true for the elements of communion, but not for the indissolubility of marriage?
P
pnewton
Guest
No one is questioning the indissolubility of marriage.
Absolutely. Marriage has been defined. The matter of the Sacrament must be one man and one woman.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The far end of the spectrum is the idea that the rule of the Church might be changed to permit communion for the divorced/remarried. Most of us here aren’t supportive of that idea but its an idea thats got value to the whole synod process. It was the Church herself who coined the term ‘devils advocate’ for the process of determining the worthiness of a beatified person for sainthood. It is quite obvious that Pope Francis is fearlessly asking for all the unfettered thoughts of his bishops and Cardinals, for the same sort of process here.
Another example of the an area deeply examined by the Church in the not to distant past was the fate of infants who died without baptism. This was at issue because it was intrinsically connected with the doctrine of Original Sin. It didn’t play out in internet forums like questions do now, but there was one side who felt very strongly that Limbo must be retained to protect the integrity of the doctrine. The other side were moved by the realities of faith for those in the situation of having an infant ‘in Limbo’ and in our modern era, that includes the mothers of abortion.
In coming to the new practice, the Church gave us this incite from her work on the subject.
The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine. Only in this way - and observing the principle of the hierarchy of truths mentioned in the Decree of the Second Vatican Council Unitatis redintegratio (#11) – the topic can be reconsidered explicitly under the global horizon of the faith of the Church. This Document, from the point of view of speculative theology as well as from the practical and pastoral perspective, constitutes for a useful and timely mean for deepening our understanding this problem, which is not only a matter of doctrine, but also of pastoral priority in the modern era.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
It is possible that over the life of the Church new understandings of the deeper meaning of doctrine, reveal pathways to strengthen the faith of people, that weren’t seen before.
C
clem456
Guest
And going deeper, the Church has always observed that Christ gives us his body and blood in the Eucharist. Cannot change, ever.
The Church also observes that the union of a man and woman is unique in God’s creative plan and no other union is the same. Cannot change, ever.
The Church also observes that to be out of communion with the body due to sin is to be, well… out of communion with the body. One cannot receive what one is not.
Cannot change, ever. The same observation applies to those living in disordered lifestyles of all kinds, including the guy that verbally abused his wife last night or looked at porn on his computer. Out of communion.
Cannot change, ever, unless we envision the Church proclaiming that porn, or verbal abuse, or remarriage etc,are no longer sin. Is that going to happen???
The Church does not invent some arbitrary construct to deny communion to people, it observes and proclaims the reality that one is out of communion.
The unchanging nature of these realities does not preclude us from new ways of speaking about them or dealing with them. A change in pastoral practice does not change doctrine, as someone said on this thread (I think).
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Since the argument attempts logic, and strictly as a hypothetical, how would C follow from the propositions A and B.
J
JimG
Guest
I think that if the Church finds a way to allow for full communion of those in an invalid second marriage, it will also have to find a way to explain why it is negating the words of Jesus.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
There is a belief that today the influences of Protestantism in all its incarnations have created a range of concepts of what Christs words meant. While the truth of Catholic doctrine won’t change …the reality of peoples personal culpability in contracting marriages today has to be recognised. Was it Pope Francis who theorised that maybe half of all Catholic marriages today would be technically invalid?
J
JimG
Guest
Maybe so. And if that is in fact the case, it might be better to formally recognize the invalidity than to simply bypass the question.
Of even more concern for the Synod, possibly, is an exploration of why so many Catholics (and Protestants too) seem incapable of forming permanent unions. In rejecting divorce, Jesus did not seem to think he was asking the impossible.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I agree and believe a person in the state of mortal sin should not receive Communion. I see no possibility the Church will change this teaching.
K
KSU
Guest
Correct; no one would argue that the Church should change that teaching. The problem, of course, is that, as far as many modern Catholics are concerned, what mortal sin is seems to be like what treason is, as captured in the old poem:
Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
There is a reason why the world’s galactically ignorant media is glued to the Synod: to see whether the “Liberal Pope” finally will change a teaching; i.e.,will become “enlightened” and approve ways to redefine the state of mortal sin for remarried people and gays by “pastoral practice”.
The secularists and haters know that by joining the rest of the world in the 21st century, the Church of Rome soon would be no more. Francis will disappoint them.
All of us are sinners so nothing above is meant to say that the Synod should not seek ways to help and comfort people who know they strayed.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
This is concerning, why is this being changed?
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/married-couples-have-their-say-at-the-synod/#ixzz3o3vsv7oa
P
pnewton
Guest
I asked this earlier, but when did Jesus say who would receive communion? In other words, what words are negated?
The arguments against communion for the remarried are solid, but they are not infinite, and I do not see this happens.
P
pnewton
Guest
It would seem that the current state is the default and changes need to have clear evidence that this is where God is leading.
S
sarah_j
Guest
I am understanding this correctly? >
1 The controversial paragraphs of the document** which failed to be approved**
by vote at the extraordinary synod were nevertheless retained in a ‘working document’
for this synod.
2. Pope Francis stressed that this document is one of three “official documents”
to be used for this synod.
3. rules have now been changed to make it harder to amend these paragraphs
(which failed approval by vote in the extraordinary synod.)
Participants are also concerned that these paragraphs that failed to achieve the required votes last time were retained in the final document of the extraordinary synod — a document that Pope Francis stressed this week is one of three “official documents” of the meeting, along with his two speeches of the last synod.
The Pope has stressed that doctrine won’t be touched, but critics contend that Cardinal Kasper’s proposal will do just that, by contradicting two millennia of Church teaching on marriage.
Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/married-couples-have-their-say-at-the-synod/#ixzz3o4aozxVG
D
dans0622
Guest
Those paragraphs were not approved by a 2/3 majority but they did receive over 50% support. To be changed, it appears that a 2/3 majority is needed. Kind of odd.
Dan
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
It failed to be approved by two thirds majority.
- Status