On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

[Ender]

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

There has always been an obligation of self examination, this is true. But there also has always been an obligation on the minister of communion not to give communion to those who were publicly unworthy. This is not some new restriction just recently imposed; it dates back to the earliest times of the church.*6. These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” *(St. Chrysostom, Homily LXXXII, c. 400)
Ender

 

[pnewton]

So, is this also not legitmate?

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

I guess this depends our how you define “problem”. No meeting of more than three bishops is going to be without disagreement at some point. When the numbers are really large, of course there will be disagreement, arguments, protest, debate and emotions. I just do not consider this to be a problem, as these types of meetings have served the Church well over the centuries. Historically, this doesn’t even blip the radar if you consider some of the really tough councils in the past.

I have posted my objection to both Akita and video blogs. I have nothing further to add* on this thread, *at this time. Please respect my attempt to stay on topic.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

As the Dogmatic Constitution ‘Dei Verbum’ provides, it is the understanding of doctrine that advances until the end of time. This indeed occurs through discernment, study and prayer, but it continues until the end of time and the full revelation.This is the dogma of the Catholic Church on this point. I realize it is not always easily grasped. However, if it is that one disagrees with Catholic dogma, it would be better to just say so if that is the case.

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.

What is ambiguous about the word ‘change’? I have not suggested that doctrine changes. It is not doctrine that changes but rather the human understanding of it. I really cannot apologize for citing Catholic dogma relative to this point.

This is a discipline.

It was only an example of the way there is change in a temporal world of continual change.

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.

With all due respect, it seems futile to once again explain that the minister of communion cannot objectively know that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment is in fact in the state of mortal sin (that is, committing adultery) by knowing only the objective fact of the marriage. That this is the teaching is known, and I have acknowledged this truth. But it is not the point with respect to a question before the synod.

 

[PTL]

There has always been an obligation of self examination, this is true. But there also has always been an obligation on the minister of communion not to give communion to those who were publicly unworthy. This is not some new restriction just recently imposed; it dates back to the earliest times of the church.*6. These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” *(St. Chrysostom, Homily LXXXII, c. 400)
Ender

I agree with you. But nowadays we never see that happen. Very few clergy will deny Eucharist to public dissenters. It rarely happens. Therefore, step back a little, at least our shepred should teach the examination of conscience. If we are not taught, how would we know clearly? And I see that as the big problem. No teaching(at least little), only claiming mercy. Many souls will be led to hell. But, wait, no one believes hell any more. Most people believe hell does not exist, or though it exists, no one except Satan goes there. Therefore, be at peace, everything goes and all is well.

 

[PTL]

“It is unclear why these procedural changes are necessary. A number of fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=982561

 

[Ender]

As the Dogmatic Constitution ‘Dei Verbum’ provides, it is the understanding of doctrine that advances until the end of time.

Yes it does, and to that extent change does occur. As I said before, “change” is ambiguous, so while some change can occur, change in the form of repudiation or the reversal of doctrine does not, at least for those doctrines that are taught infallibly.

I realize it is not always easily grasped. However, if it is that one disagrees with Catholic dogma, it would be better to just say so if that is the case.

I don’t disagree with the church. I’m having difficulty with your interpretation of what she teaches.

I have not suggested that doctrine changes. It is not doctrine that changes but rather the human understanding of it.

Truth does not change, although clearly our understanding of it can indeed change. Since doctrines are nothing more than the church’s understanding of eternal truths, those doctrines can change to the extent that her understanding improves.

It was only an example of the way there is change in a temporal world of continual change.

This is confusing. You just said above that doctrine does not change, yet here you are saying change is continual. If the doctrines involved here do not change then the discussion is over, and the change suggested by Cdl Kasper is impossible.

With all due respect, it seems futile to once again explain that the minister of communion cannot objectively know that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment is in fact in the state of mortal sin (that is, committing adultery) by knowing only the objective fact of the marriage. That this is the teaching is known, and I have acknowledged this truth. But it is not the point with respect to a question before the synod.

So you expect the synod to say that what the church yesterday considered objective fact is today to be considered unknowable? It seems your position rests entirely on the fact that if we cannot know that people are sinning it must be assumed that they are not. That is, it is the fact of sin, not the appearance that matters. Now apply this standard to other situations. On what basis could the church disallow the participation of those in homosexual “marriages”, of couples who cohabit, in fact of anyone living in a situation that is (or was yesterday) considered to be objectively sinful?

You discount the significance of scandal and your solution would dismiss it entirely.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I agree with you. But nowadays we never see that happen. Very few clergy will deny Eucharist to public dissenters. It rarely happens. Therefore, step back a little, at least our shepred should teach the examination of conscience. If we are not taught, how would we know clearly? And I see that as the big problem. No teaching(at least little), only claiming mercy. Many souls will be led to hell. But, wait, no one believes hell any more. Most people believe hell does not exist, or though it exists, no one except Satan goes there. Therefore, be at peace, everything goes and all is well.

The problem is less that the laity doesn’t accept what the church teaches on this subject than that an apparently significant number of bishops disbelieve it as well. The status quo on this topic has all the appearance of being no better accepted than Humanae Vitae.

Ender

 

[Corki]

With all due respect, it seems futile to once again explain that the minister of communion cannot objectively know that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment is in fact in the state of mortal sin (that is, committing adultery) by knowing only the objective fact of the marriage. That this is the teaching is known, and I have acknowledged this truth. But it is not the point with respect to a question before the synod.

However, it is not impossible for the minister of Communion to know that a person is, objectively and in fact, married outside of the Church. That would make that person unable to receive Communion even without the prior marriage. The adultery might not be mortal sin IF the communicant was unaware of Church teaching or unable to have made a free will choice. Those cases are extremely rare among Catholics who are actually attending Mass and who might present themselves for Communion.

Adultery can be forgiven. But marriage outside of the Church must be reconciled before it can be forgiven.

 

[Thomas_White]

However, it is not impossible for the minister of Communion to know that a person is, objectively and in fact, married outside of the Church. That would make that person unable to receive Communion even without the prior marriage.

This does not answer the question of why the Church would ever permit a person in this situation to receive communion. And it certainly does in accordance with Catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

Adultery can be forgiven. But marriage outside of the Church must be reconciled before it can be forgiven.

Any sin can be forgiven, but forgiveness **requires **the intention not to repeat the sin. It is not the past adultery that is the problem; it is the intention to continue repeating the sin in the future that does not permit it to be forgiven.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Deciding who should receive communion, and who should not, at the level of the priest, without a formal process, is what Cardinal Kasper is proposing, by the way. If the same one who think it should be done this way for politicians, but no one else who might benefit from it because of their marital situation, I have to question how much of this talk is political.

 

[PTL]

EWTN Newspaper reports:

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-burke-synods-originally-meant-to-preserve-strengthen-doctrine-and/

Synods, he stressed, have “no authority to change doctrine and discipline”, adding that their nature is stated clearly in canon 342 of the Code of Canon Law, which he went on to quote:
“The Synod of Bishops is a group of Bishops selected from different parts of the world, who meet together at specified times to promote the close relationship between the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops. These Bishops, by their counsel, assist the Roman Pontiff in the defense and development of faith and morals and in the preservation and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline. They also consider questions concerning the mission of the Church in the world.”

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-burke-synods-originally-meant-to-preserve-strengthen-doctrine-and/#ixzz3oND0jx3Q

 

[Thomas_White]

However, it is not impossible for the minister of Communion to know that a person is, objectively and in fact, married outside of the Church. That would make that person unable to receive Communion even without the prior marriage. The adultery might not be mortal sin IF the communicant was unaware of Church teaching or unable to have made a free will choice. Those cases are extremely rare among Catholics who are actually attending Mass and who might present themselves for Communion.

Adultery can be forgiven. But marriage outside of the Church must be reconciled before it can be forgiven.

Not wishing to confuse the question, but it would seem there either is or is not a second marriage. This is ambiguous when the second marriage is said to be both an objective fact and invalid.

 

[Corki]

Not wishing to confuse the question, but it would seem there either is or is not a second marriage. This is ambiguous when the second marriage is said to be both an objective fact and invalid.

“Second” is irrelevant as far as Communion goes. What prevents someone in this case from receiving Communion is remaining in a civil marriage entered into outside the Church. It doesn’t matter if it was the first, second or tenth marriage. Catholics who marry outside of the Church are objectively not properly disposed to receive Communion.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
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.

I realize that apparently the mystery of the missing post was cleared up, but the underlying confusion was not. When Leftists attack orthodoxy with the usual abusive, intolerant and uncharitable rhetoric, confusion is created, not cleared up.

 

[KSU]

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.

 

[Thomas_White]

“Second” is irrelevant as far as Communion goes. What prevents someone in this case from receiving Communion is remaining in a civil marriage entered into outside the Church. It doesn’t matter if it was the first, second or tenth marriage. Catholics who marry outside of the Church are objectively not properly disposed to receive Communion.

What would be the point in debating the question when in fact it is Catholic teaching that such a Catholic is permitted to receive communion if they are not committing the sin of adultery?

 

[Corki]

What would be the point in debating the question when in fact it is Catholic teaching that such a Catholic is permitted to receive communion if they are not committing the sin of adultery?

Please point me to that reference in Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

When Leftists attack orthodoxy with the usual abusive, intolerant and uncharitable rhetoric, confusion is created, not cleared up.

I used these words in this “attack”:
I have found
particularly unreliable
blog

You used:
*Leftists
attack
abusive
intolerant
uncharitable

*Really?

 

[PTL]

"Particularly unreliable’ in one person’s eye is “particularly reliable” in another’s eye. It depends on which side a person stands. It will be prudent not to call something unreliable without providing evidence. The Apostolate you attacked is a legitimate Apostolate. They are in the Synod conference. The Synod does not just admit anybody.