On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[ProVobis]

Yeah I bet you do!

I read it as past tense. But you got the gist at least.

 

[KSU]

I read it as past tense. But you got the gist at least.

I told you before, Pro, the poor Sisters gave me a passing grade in Latin just to get rid of me.
I did however like to learn the Latin roots of our vocabulary.

 

[pnewton]

This is a pointless post without any information. It just seems like a scurrilous attempt to stir up unnecessary hissing and snarling.

It is a blog. They are everywhere and say everything. They are no more reliable than strangers on a subway. Some are great, others crazy, and most in between. The same is true of the video versions. Since Church Militant has been mentioned twice, I will say that I personally have found that video blog particularly unreliable.

 

[pnewton]

Akita Apparition Letter

FYI - The letter does not say it was approved. The header to the letter, which is not from the Church, does. Even when it is approved by the Catholic Church, and I think it will be some day, it remains private revelation. Even within the province of Niigata, the area covered by the episcopal recognition, veneration is authorized. From the letter:

Consequently, I authorize, throughout the entire diocese, the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita, while awaiting that the Holy See publishes definitive judgment on this matter.
And I ask that it be remembered that even if the Holy See later publishes a favorable judgment with regard to the events of Akita, it is a question only of a private Divine revelation. Christians are bound to believe only content of public Divine revelation …

I simply do no see where evoking things said from this event and trying to apply them to this synod could have any bearing. Cardinals do not always agree? Yes, but was that really ever in question?

 

[pnewton]

“There are fundamental doctrinal issues at the heart of this which are not negotiable,” he told Aleteia. “The New Testament is not negotiable. The teaching of Christ on adultery and remarriage; the teachings of Paul about the essential prerequisites of Communion are not negotiable.”

St. Paul spoke specifically about the issue of worthiness to receive communion. This is doctrine as well.

“But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”

This is why see Cardinal Kasper’s point of view. I do not see how doctrinally worthiness to receive communion could be anything but a matter of self-examination. St. Paul himself established this criteria. Rather, I agree with the idea of refusing communion as more pastoral that doctrinal, namely, as a way of keeping the faithful from committing this sin. I do not like this debate pitting the pastoral versus the doctrinal. The doctrinal issue is not clear, in that a remarried person receiving communion is a practice synthesized from two separate doctrines. Some Cardinals say the synthesis is a doctrine as well. Some do not. It has not been defined as doctrine though. No one claims it has.

Likewise, the current annulment system is pastoral, very much so. It is not about keeping anyone from anything except Hell. It is every bit as pastoral as any other proposal and those that support the status quo are very bit as merciful and concerned for the divorced and remarried as anyone. They just believe that the greater mercy is in the current system. It is a compelling argument.

 

[I_trust]

Could you link me to some evidence of the approval?

I already did, but here goes…
Akita Apparition Letter
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/akita_apparition.html

1. After the investigation conducted up to the present day, **I recognize the supernatural character **of a series of mysterious events concerning the statue of the Holy Mother Mary which is found in the convent of the Institute of the Handmaids of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist at Yuzawadai, Soegawa, Akita.
   I do not find in these events any elements which are contrary to Catholic faith and morals.
2. Consequently,** I authorize, throughout the entire diocese, the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita**, while awaiting that the Holy See publishes definitive judgment on this matter.
   And I ask that it be remembered that even if the Holy See later publishes a favorable judgment with regard to the events of Akita, it is a question only of a private Divine revelation. Christians are bound to believe only content of public Divine revelation (closed after the death of the last Apostle) which contains all that is necessary for salvation. Nevertheless, the Church, until now, has equally made much of private Divine revelations as they fortify the faith. For reference, I cite the following texts of the document on Catholic Doctrine:

 

[PTL]

I hope people won’t jump to conclusion without really checking something out.
Here is a report also from the website some are blindly attacking:

The 49-year-old bishop from Gbarnga stressed that the African bishops want to “emphasize the family, papa, mama, children.”

“For us, in Africa, we believe in the traditional teachings of the Church.”

His Excellency also went on to clearly state the Church’s teaching on Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. “If the person is not having an affair … the person is coming for regular confession … then I think that person can come up for Communion.”

Bishop Borwah continued, “But if you are divorced and maybe you’re having affairs with somebody else … you cannot come for Communion. We want to be very careful about these new teachings coming into the Church.”

The Catholic Church has always taught that those in a public state of grave sin, such as adultery, are not permitted to receive Holy Communion, as it would constitute a sacrilege with the Holy Eucharist, as explained by St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:29).

Attacking some ministry without really knowing about it does not fit in the language of “mercy” at all.

 

[pnewton]

I hope people won’t jump to conclusion without really checking something out.
Here is a report also from the website some are blindly attacking:

Attacking some ministry without really knowing about it does not fit in the language of “mercy” at all.

I do know that site, and that it is not an approved Catholic apostolate. Here is an example of one of the issues I have.

The verse quoted begins with the word (in English) “for”, Whatever language, it is a conjunction which make what follows dependent on what precedes it. What precedes it is, " But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup." It is called proof-texting when you take on sentence or sentence fragment out of context to make it say something it is not intended to say. The point is that self-examination is needed before receiving communion to avoid sacrilege, not that the bishop or priest should examine one before giving communion, at least in this verse.

I am not saying I am any smarter or better, but here I am part of a dialogue and can be shown to be mistaken, rebutted, ignored or opposed. Copying arguments from other discussions does not allow for such an exchange.

 

[Ender]

St. Paul spoke specifically about the issue of worthiness to receive communion… I do not see how doctrinal worthiness to receive communion could be anything but a matter of self-examination.

However you might interpret this, the church has been quite clear: the minister of communion has the obligation to refuse communion to those who are publicly known to be in grave sin. The fact that this command is not explicitly found in Scripture is irrelevant since the church has never restricted her doctrines solely to what is found in the Bible.

St. Paul himself established this criteria.

One particular criterion does not preclude the existence of others. This restriction existed even before the biblical canon was complete.

Rather, I agree with the idea of refusing communion as more pastoral that doctrinal…

Are we to believe then that Canon 916, which defines the obligation of the communicant, is doctrine while Canon 915, which defines the obligation of the minister of communion, is not? More to the point, how can it be pastoral to intentionally allow others to “eat and drink judgment against themselves”? Either they are worthy, in which case communion is to their benefit, or they are unworthy, in which case they compound their sin. Are you arguing that they are worthy simply because they choose to receive?

…namely, as a way of keeping the faithful from committing this sin.

This is only partly correct. It is no small thing to prevent others from sinning, but the church is also concerned about the scandal involved. That is, she is concerned about letting others be led into sin.

The doctrinal issue is not clear, in that a remarried person receiving communion is a practice synthesized from two separate doctrines.

What is unclear? Is a remarried person in a state of grave sin or not? Jesus himself proclaimed it to be an adulterous state so that point seems fairly settled. Are people in a state of grave sin supposed to receive communion? Again, this one seems as settled as doctrine gets. So the question is: should the church act to prevent someone publicly known to be in a state of grave sin from receiving communion? What is the argument that the church shouldn’t care?

Some Cardinals say the synthesis is a doctrine as well. Some do not. It has not been defined as doctrine though.

Perhaps I don’t understand your concern. What “synthesis” are you referring to. What is the “It” that has not been defined?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

However you might interpret this, the church has been quite clear: the minister of communion has the obligation to refuse communion to those who are publicly known to be in grave sin. The fact that this command is not explicitly found in Scripture is irrelevant since the church has never restricted her doctrines solely to what is found in the Bible.

This is the precise point. I have not seen where anyone on the thread has said the Church cannot establish either doctrine or discipline. That the understanding and interpretation of doctrine or discipline has advanced in the temporal world of continual change is very much the point. There was a time when the teaching was that it was sinful to eat or drink after midnight if a person were to receive Communion the following morning.

That the minister of communion in fact would know a person is in the state of grave sin is a question, and it holds equally true for every person receiving Communion.

 

[ProVobis]

The point is that self-examination is needed before receiving communion to avoid sacrilege, not that the bishop or priest should examine one before giving communion, at least in this verse.

That is true. However, do realize that our determination of sacrilege (and thus the mortal sin associated with it) has changed somewhat.over the years. For example, before Vatican II it was considered a sacrilege for a layman to even touch the sacred species or even the paten if it had dropped particles of same. Now, of course, given the right approvals, one can skip the tongue and paten altogether.

 

[pnewton]

That is true. However, do realize that our determination of sacrilege (and thus the mortal sin associated with it) has changed somewhat.over the years.

I understand this. I was only pointing out that this particular passage was misapplied in order to support a doctrine which it does not, and which not even all in the Church agrees is doctrine, that is, reception of communion for the remarried prior to an annulment. While I understand the pastoral argument, I find the doctrinal argument weak and the Scriptural argument even weaker. St. Paul specifically was referring to something other than ecclesial action.

 

[pnewton]

That the minister of communion in fact would know a person is in the state of grave sin is a question, and it holds equally true for every person receiving Communion.

On of the criticisms of Cardinal Kasper is that the minister of communion could be too close to a situation to objectively be able to make this determination.

 

[pnewton]

I found this rather interesting quote that I think explains what we find in the letter to the Church at Corinth.

“Denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter. It should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal.” He added however, that "the Church always expects Catholics who are living in serious sin or who deny the teachings of the Church - whether they’re highly visible officials or anonymous parishioners - to have the integrity to respect both the Eucharist and the faithful, and to refrain from receiving Communion.’

tldm.org/News6/Chaput2.htm

 

[ProVobis]

I found this rather interesting quote that I think explains what we find in the letter to the Church at Corinth.
tldm.org/News6/Chaput2.htm

The “honor system” IOW.

We know how that works, unfortunately. But I don’t know of any other way except reminders from the pulpit.

 

[graciew]

The “honor system” IOW.

We know how that works, unfortunately. But I don’t know of any other way except reminders from the pulpit.

Maybe a sense of community. Like I know that if I go to Communion it would be hurtful for Jesus and hurt the whole body . Like I am.also affecting my community. But not so much in theory but that in practice we really belong and care for each other.What do you think ?

 

[pnewton]

Like I am.also affecting my community. But not so much in theory but that in practice we really belong and care for each other.What do you think ?

I think you have a wonderful perspective, and one I have not heard yet. Instead of just telling people to wait or “no”, perhaps an effort could be made to explain how this sacrifice, if the person waiting on the canonical process knows he is not in a state of mortal sin, could be seen as contributing to the greater good of elevating the state of marriage.

 

[PTL]

The question of whether receiving the Holy Eucharist is currently based on self-examination. It has always been and it should always be.

The problem is people need to be educated in the area of what St. Paul said of “receiving the Eucharist worthily”, as well as in the area of self-examination. Lot of people do not have sufficient knowledge in catechism. If they are not taught, how would they know?

I have no problem to welcome gays to worship with us. That has been the way in every church as far as I know. Last night the couple of lesbian were sitting next beside me. We all know who they are. The "wife’ wears a diamond ring, the “husband” wears a man’s wedding bend. We all exchange peace to them.

The priest was talking about how we should put God first above anything. He mentioned we should look our own life for any bad habit, any bad attachment, or any relationship God disapproves and repent. He said maybe there is a relationship we think we cannot survive without it, but for man is not possible, for God all is possible (from the Gospel reading). The homily was very good. Although he spoke in general, at least he did good teachings for whoever can hear.

We can bring everyone into the Church, but then what? Without teaching, only use “mercy” to give Communion to everyone is a disservice. So far all who advocates Communion for gay have never mentioned any word of conversion or repentance. That is the problem, a serious one. It is like when we see someone in drug addiction, we keep on providing drugs to them without helping them to quit the addiction.

 

[pnewton]

That is the problem, a serious one. It is like when we see someone in drug addiction, we keep on providing drugs to them without helping them to quit the addiction.

I do not think providing drugs to drug users is the same as giving the Eucharist to sinners, but I see your point, if not the analogy. It is an incomplete Gospel to speak of conversion, grace and mercy without the basic prerequisite of why one needs these things to begin with. Salvation cannot exist with a need to be saved, that is sin. This is the point AB Chaput made at the synod we he said he saw a subtle hopelessness. We can be pastoral and seasoned, soft and careful, but in the end sin still must be addressed and mentioned.

 

[PTL]

We can be pastoral and seasoned, soft and careful, but in the end sin still must be addressed and mentioned.

I am glad we agree on this. The problem I see on all the Synod discussion so far is only the soft seasoned part without any intention of addressing sin, repentance, and conversion.

No, my analogy of providing drugs to drug addict is to the “indulging people in sin with Eucharist without telling them the Gospel truth”, not to the Eucharist itself…