On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[Thomas_White]

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 ?

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 ?

I think that if a person determines he or she is not in the state of mortal sin and receives communion, there is no problem. The misperception and presumption of others that they are in a state of mortal sin is what ought to be at question. By what right are some making this judgment and why are they so concerned about the spiritual lives of others? I would think they would do better to concern themselves with their own souls.

 

[Thomas_White]

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 ?

I think that if a person determines he or she is not in the state of mortal sin and receives communion, there is no problem. The misperception and presumption of others that they are in a state of mortal sin is what ought to be at question. Why are some making this judgment and why are they so concerned about the spiritual lives of others? I would think they would do better to concern themselves with their own souls. This is only my feeling, of course, but the same question could be raised about anyone who receives communion.

"Who am I to judge’?

 

[ProVobis]

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 ?

This may sound weird but I actually have a lot of respect for those who sit out communion. I figure they do so out of respect for our Lord. I don’t know if those who do go up go because they want to add to their holiness or just are caught up in some herd mentality. Either way they should be providing good example and be “nice” to others, as my mother asked me to do when I went to communion. There’s nothing more irritating to me to see unfriendly neighbors receiving communion and then continue their unkind and unpleasant gestures once we get back to our homes.

 

[JimG]

This may sound weird but I actually have a lot of respect for those who sit out communion. I figure they do so out of respect for our Lord. I don’t know if those who do go up go because they want to add to their holiness or just are caught up in some herd mentality. Either way they should be providing good example and be “nice” to others, as my mother asked me to do when I went to communion. There’s nothing more irritating to me to see unfriendly neighbors receiving communion and then continue their unkind and unpleasant gestures once we get back to our homes.

Having grown up in the pre-conciliar Church, I still get a little dissonance seeing that nearly everyone in the congregation approaches for communion. My recollection is that in earlier days about 50% received, and it was a random access method, not pew by pew. Those who did not receive might have abstained because they had not been to confession lately, were conscious of serious sin, or had taken a drink of water that morning thereby breaking the fast from midnight. No one questioned why anyone did not receive. But one always had to make a conscious decision to get up and go to the communion rail. Now, you have to make a conscious decision if you wish to stay in the pew.

 

[ProVobis]

Having grown up in the pre-conciliar Church, I still get a little dissonance seeing that nearly everyone in the congregation approaches for communion. My recollection is that in earlier days about 50% received, and it was a random access method, not pew by pew. Those who did not receive might have abstained because they had not been to confession lately, were conscious of serious sin, or had taken a drink of water that morning thereby breaking the fast from midnight. No one questioned why anyone did not receive. But one always had to make a conscious decision to get up and go to the communion rail. Now, you have to make a conscious decision if you wish to stay in the pew.

You might see about 50% receiving at Spanish or Polish Masses. And for the most part, they seem to be as much if not more devoted to the Catholic faith.

 

[adrift]

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:

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?

It doesn’t ?

After long prayer and mature reflection, I hand down the following conclusions in my position as Bishop of Niigata:

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:

“The saints and the angels, having been conformed to the Will of God receive from Him grace and glory in abundance and it is right to venerate them because this amounts to offering praise and thanksgiving to God Himself. Among the saints the Virgin Mary deserves a special veneration. Indeed, She is not only the Mother of Our Savior who is God, but also the Mother of us all, and it is as Mother that She intercedes for us, full of Divine grace greater than those received by all the saints and angels.” (Article 72)

“One venerates the statues and images of Christ and of the saints to sustain the faith, to adore Christ, to venerate the saints. This act thus becomes praise to God.” (Article 170)
Finally, I beg God that He accord to you all abundant graces, and I send my Apostolic blessings.

He recognizes it as being supernatural and approves veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita. Seems approved by the Bishop to me.

 

[adrift]

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.

I have gone through this thread twice and find no mention of Church Militant except this post. Would you please explain your comment???

 

[LongingSoul]

It doesn’t ?

He recognizes it as being supernatural and approves veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita. Seems approved by the Bishop to me.

That just seems to me to be a letter by the local bishop to the locals already entrenched in the veneration of the event that he says can continue until there if an official decision by the Church… “Consequently, I authorize, throughout the entire diocese,…”

Is America part of the diocese of Akita?

 

[LongingSoul]

I have gone through this thread twice and find no mention of Church Militant except this post. Would you please explain your comment???

It must have been deleted. It was posted by PTL as though it was a valid news source but I called it out. It seemed like an ultra right wing extremist blog which apparently it was.

 

[sarah_j]

An interview: What a divorced and remarried Catholic wants from the Synod.

“As a divorced and remarried Catholic mother who wishes to bring up her children in the faith, do you think that the Church could make things easier for your family by changing the doctrine of marriage?”

continued here

Excellent article.
I hope there are many people like this woman who are participating
in the synod - people with a good understanding and acceptance
of what the Church teaches regarding marriage.

 

[adrift]

That just seems to me to be a letter by the local bishop to the locals already entrenched in the veneration of the event that he says can continue until there if an official decision by the Church… "Consequently, I authorize, throughout the entire diocese,…"

Is America part of the diocese of Akita?

What does it mean when the local bishop approves an apparition?
It means that the message is not contrary to faith and morals, that Mary can be venerated in a special way at the site and that the faithful can believe with confidence that a supernatural event took place.
This website describes the process

…The Bishop’s Role

When an allegedly supernatural event has occurred, it is the responsibility of the local bishop to conduct an investigation, usually through a committee of experts.

Theologically and canonically, the bishop is entrusted with the role of “oversight” of the diocese. This role of “oversight” is based on the bishop’s responsibility both for public worship and for the religious teaching which occurs in the diocese…Public Worship

All such investigations are conducted by the bishop to determine whether public worship should continue to be held in those places. It could happen that the investigative committee could conclude that at this time it is able neither to make a clearly positive nor a clearly negative judgement. If the matter is still being investigated, the bishop could permit public worship, while at the same time continuing to be vigilant that the devotions do not wander into deviant directions. …Our Responsibility

As the bishops are entrusted with these responsibilities stemming from the nature of their office, so there are fundamental responsibilities on the part of the members of the diocese. First, they are to obey their bishops when the latter act as Christ’s representatives (canon 212), that is, when they teach formally or establish binding discipline as pastors of a particular church. This obedience owed to the bishops in their capacity as leaders of particular churches is intended to promote the common good. Canon 753 also speaks of the “religious assent” owed to the bishops’ teaching authority, which means a special quality of respect and gratitude, along with critical awareness and good will. Hence, there should be intelligent obedience to ecclesiastical authority in the matter of alleged apparitions…
The Foundations of Our Faith

Our faith cannot rest on private revelations and apparitions. Even with properly approved apparitions, we must maintain a proper perspective – viewing them as an assistance to nourish our faith in the central dogmas of the Incarnation, the Trinity and the Eucharist. In their 1973 pastoral letter, Behold Your Mother: Woman of Faith, the American bishops called authenticated appearances of Mary “providential happenings [which] serve as reminders of basic Christian themes: such as prayer, penance, and the necessity of the sacraments.” (# 100).

 

[adrift]

It must have been deleted. It was posted by PTL as though it was a valid news source but I called it out. It seemed like an ultra right wing extremist blog which apparently it was.

Thanks for clearing up that confusion.

 

[sarah_j]

What does it mean when the local bishop approves an apparition?
It means that the message is not contrary to faith and morals, that Mary can be venerated in a special way at the site and that the faithful can believe with confidence that a supernatural event took place.
This website describes the process

Yes, that’s my understanding as well…that the authority to approve/ disapprove
apparitions rests with the local bishop.

I’d never heard of Our Lady of Akita; this site does list that appearance as approved by the local bishop.
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/bishop.html

Title: Our Lady of Akita
First Apparition:
July 6, 1973

Approved:
April 22, 1984 approved by Bishop John Shoojiroo Ito of Niigata. In 1988, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger allowed Ito’s pastoral letter and its dissemination to the faithful.

Last Apparition:
October 13, 1973
(The statue wept 101 times from July 6, 1973 to Sept 15, 1981)

Visionaries:
Sr. Agnes Sasagawa (43)

Number of Apparitions: 3

Miracles & Signs: Bleeding Statue, Stigmata

Summary: Sister Agnes Sasagawa of the Handmaids of the Eucharist received 101 messages emanating from a bleeding wooden statue.

 

[LongingSoul]

What does it mean when the local bishop approves an apparition?
It means that the message is not contrary to faith and morals, that Mary can be venerated in a special way at the site and that the faithful can believe with confidence that a supernatural event took place.
This website describes the process

*“As the bishops are entrusted with these responsibilities stemming from the nature of their office, so there are fundamental responsibilities on the part of the members of the diocese.” *

This instruction relates to the Bishops role of authority over a given diocese. If a Bishop were to deem the 3rd Rite of reconciliation approved for his diocese, that then can’t be used as a universal instruction to all Catholics. Similarly, an apparition not approved by the Holy See for the whole of the Church can’t be used to behove submission by all Catholics in regards to how they should oppose synod ideas.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, that’s my understanding as well…that the authority to approve/ disapprove
apparitions rests with the local bishop.

I’d never heard of Our Lady of Akita; this site does list that appearance as approved by the local bishop.
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/bishop.html

Title: Our Lady of Akita
First Apparition:
July 6, 1973

Approved:
April 22, 1984 approved by Bishop John Shoojiroo Ito of Niigata. In 1988, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger allowed Ito’s pastoral letter and its dissemination to the faithful.

Last Apparition:
October 13, 1973
(The statue wept 101 times from July 6, 1973 to Sept 15, 1981)

Visionaries:
Sr. Agnes Sasagawa (43)

Number of Apparitions: 3

Miracles & Signs: Bleeding Statue, Stigmata

Summary: Sister Agnes Sasagawa of the Handmaids of the Eucharist received 101 messages emanating from a bleeding wooden statue.

These sites and their claims are not official Vatican sites or from the individual Catholic dioceses. Visions and apparitions and the cults that grow up around them can become obsessions rather than be approached with the proper cautious discernment required. They are not meant to be points on which to base faith… just signs to bring warmth to an already established faith.

This is another view of the apparitions of Akito…

Resources for controverted supernatural events involving Akita

According to the EWTN website, in June 1988, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the then Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave a definitive judgement on the Akita events and messages, that they were “reliable and worthy of belief.”

ewtn.com/library/mary/akita.htm

However, this link provides no information to substantiate this claim, and in fact the source of this information is questionable: At the end of the quote about Cardinal Ratzinger, the source is given as:

Apparitions List Archives Apparitions List (Apar-l) is an internet mailing list dedicated to sharing information of all approved apparitions by the Catholic Church, and all reputable on-going apparitions, that are not contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. and there are a number of troubling points to consider.

So this information just comes from a privately run mailing list, and not from an authoritative source.

A further disturbing point concerns Fr Teiji Yasuda’s book, Akita: The Tears and Message of Mary. When it was originally translated into English, and published in 1989, the apostolic nuncio in Japan, Bishop William Aquin Carew, asked that sales be suspended, because of the text on the back cover. This was taken from an article in the October 1988 edition of the Catholic magazine, 30 DAYS, which ultimately came from a story reported by an Asian news agency. This detailed a meeting between Cardinal Ratzinger and Bishop Ito in June 1988, at which the latter handed over a dossier on Akita.

The article in 30 DAYS contained the sentence: “Ratzinger, after studying the dossier, is reported to have judged the Virgin’s messages as creditable.” But in April 1990, Bishop Carew noted of Cardinal Ratzinger that: “His Eminence did not give any judgment on the reliability or credibility of the ‘messages of the Virgin.’ According to the transcription of the meeting, he simply affirmed that ‘there are no objections to the conclusions of the pastoral letter.’ ” The back cover of the book was thus changed following the nuncio’s statement. (30 DAYS Magazine, July-August 1990, “The Tears of Akita,” by Stefano M. Paci, pp. 42-43.)

More recently, the situation has been further clarified. It appears that the Vatican has not approved of Akita, as the following statement from the Apostolic Nuncio in Tokyo, Ambrose de Paoli, issued in 1999, makes clear. In response to a query from the editor of a British Catholic magazine, the Apostolic Nuncio stated: **“The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has asked me to respond to your query re: Akita. … The Holy See has never given any kind of approval to either the events or messages of Akita.” **(Christian Order, December 1999, p. 610.)

As regards the wider Church, following the first commission, the Japanese bishops’ conference decided against Akita, and ordered that group pilgrimages to the shrine should cease, although they were prepared to allow individuals to visit the convent. **Indeed, in 1990, the president of the conference, Peter Seiichi Shirayanagi, told 30 DAYS, in what were described as terms of “unusual harshness,” that, “The events of Akita are no longer to be taken seriously. We think they do not now have a great significance for the Church and Japanese society.” (**30 DAYS Magazine, July -August 1990, “The Tears of Akita,” by Stefano M. Paci, p. 45).

**In addition, one of the alleged messages is quite apocalyptic in tone, and speaks of fire which will "fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity …” At one time it was claimed that this paralleled the contents of the third part of the secret of Fatima, but that is clearly not the case.

It also states that:“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops.” This type of message is more characteristic of the contents of unapproved visions than approved ones.**

So all of this indicates that it seems appropriate to put Akita in the “controverted” category of apparitions.

theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/akita/akita.html

 

[LongingSoul]

The reason that they are to be discerned seriously is because the devil can screw with them to undermine a persons faith.

 

[PTL]

Church Militant is a Catholic News Organization. It reports things as it is. We need to hear what is going on as it is, no cover up. To call right wing nasty name is the current strategy of the extreme left’s hate speech. Many devout parishioners in my Parish subscribe it and that is how I learn about it. There are 4 million Catholic subscribers. I don’t subscribe it but often receive forwarded link from different people. Michael Voris interviewed many different bishops and supported by those bishops. His crew are in the Synod newsroom.

 

[pnewton]

I have gone through this thread twice and find no mention of Church Militant except this post. Would you please explain your comment???

Twice this blog has been linked under the guise as news from the synod. That was all. I just wanted to point out that it is not news. While run by Catholics, it is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. That is all. There are other threads on this topic that have popped up in the past, as has the Marian apparition at Akita. I would be happy to explain my objections either privately, or in another thread, to the post above. (#365)

I guess if someone sees a point in posting these and other sources outside the Church, that is there business. I also think it fair to point out their limitation. The most obvious limitation of questionable sources is that they will only support agreement with those that agree. I prefer authoritative sources, as the truth is easier to discern. I will trust the synod participants have enough common sense to stick to clear differences. That is difficult enough.

Consider the path of the Holy Father who said he does not even watch television news.

 

[PTL]

So, is this also not legitmate?

Citing Sacred Scripture, fourth-century councils, and recent popes, Archbishop Gadecki warned that the admission of such persons to Holy Communion would undermine the Sacrament of Penance and cause “so great damage” not only to the pastoral care of the family but also to the Church’s doctrine on sanctifying grace.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26383&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

If there is no problem at the Synod, why does Poland and African bishops all protest? And also our archbishop Chaput?

If anything not to your agreement is not reliable, please name and quote some reliable source.

 

[Ender]

I have not seen where anyone on the thread has said the Church cannot establish either doctrine or discipline.

The church can set disciplines however she wants; she can set them one day and reverse them the next. This is not true of doctrine, which is not a question of determining what ought to be done but of discerning from revelation and sacred tradition what God would have us do.

That the understanding and interpretation of doctrine or discipline has advanced in the temporal world of continual change is very much the point.

It is simply wrong to suggest that doctrines continually change, nor is it accurate to suggest that since change can occur a reversal of doctrine is simply another form of change. “Change” is an ambiguous word.

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.

This is a discipline.

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.

The doctrine is very explicit on this point: the person has to obstinately persist in manifest, grave sin. It is the manifest nature of the situation that puts the burden on the minister of communion.

Ender