K
Kindness
Guest
I really don’t expect the synod to make any decisions contrary to the Catechism.
Since this is very applicable to my own experience, I’m thrilled to hear it being spoken about by the Synod.Below is an interesting summary of day 2. I’m particularly interested in this part:
"The bishops also spoke of the need to use “the law of graduality” when dealing with people struggling to live a Christian life. Cardinal Nichols later noted in the briefing that St. John Paul II invoked the same concept in the 1982 synod, but made a clear distinction: “There is a law of graduality, but not a graduality to the law.” That may end up being the motto of this Extraordinary Synod."
The concepts of “the Holy Spirit protects the Church”, and “the gates of hell will not prevail” are things I’ve been thinking a lot about, but I’ve been unable to understand exactly what they mean.Well, to borrow and modify your metaphor (), it can also be quite damaging to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire at all. Everyone panics and starts running for the door and people get trampled over and seriously hurt – all for no reason.
Doctrine cannot change. It will not change. I give the Holy Spirit all the credit for that. And I sincerely trust Him on that. It doesn’t matter what this headline says or what that individual bishop says. When it comes down to it, that’s the reality of the Catholic Church. Jesus entrusted Divine Revelation to the apostles and their successors (our pope and the bishops in union with him). He promised the Holy Spirit would guide them and that the gates of hell would not prevail against that Church. If we really believe that, how can we think for even one micro-second that the pope is going to pull the rug out from under us? It’s just not going to happen.
We know at some point that the Church must face severe persecution and trial. It would appear on the surface, that the gates have prevailed in that scenario. I suppose the trust comes in believing that God will raise it up again. So maybe the Church is not invincible, it can be defeated on earth, just as Jesus was killed. But God will raise it up.The concepts of “the Holy Spirit protects the Church”, and “the gates of hell will not prevail” are things I’ve been thinking a lot about, but I’ve been unable to understand exactly what they mean.
For a long time I ha. d in my head what I thought they meant. But things occured that demonstrated that I was wrong (things that I thought couldn’t happen, did happen), so I had to accept that my notions had been pretty naive.
Now, it’s hard for me to know what to think about those things because I know I’ve been wrong before, and because it’s hard to trust after you’ve been “burned”.
Maybe I’ve jumped from being too naive to being too cynical, I don’t know.
mobile.twitter.com/CatholicNewsSvc/status/519867983255339009@CatholicNewsSvc: SouthAfrican couple to #Synod14: If God is the ultimate forgiver & full of compassion," couples in 2nd unions should be allowed Communion
Yea, except one has to actually be sorry and ask for forgiveness, in order to be forgiven.
I’ll second that!I just have to say “Thank you” to McCall for pulling in all these great updates.It makes for a nice backbone for thread discussion.
**This so needed to be said! ** A couple of weeks ago we heard something similar when our pastor told us “the Church does not belong to the pope, or to the bishops, or to the theologians. She belongs to Christ.”Is the only way to “hold onto them, and try to bring them the Word of God” to debase the common understanding of the Sacraments against they have committed sacrilege, and so debase the marriages of everyone who took and who still take their vows seriously?
If liberalization of divorce “policy” or “discipline” or whatever you want to call is really on the table, then let’s call it what it is: a clericalist attack on the distinctive Sacrament of the laity, however well-intentioned it may be. Marriage is our Sacrament, the Sacrament we live, the one given to us by God to order and structure and ennoble our lives as laymen just as surely as Holy Orders structures and ennobles their lives as clerics. It is not Francis’ or Kasper’s or the bishops’ plaything to dismantle at will.
The problem with the quotes, as I see it, is that we think we know and understand the mind of God and that we would so like to impose our own opinions upon His perfect timing. That the Church will eventually triumph is not disputed, but I’ve said many times now, Christ may take her on a circuitous route and us on a journey of suffering and doubt. How can we expect to escape the Agony in the Garden? And did not the Apostles wonder as they watched the Master die on the cross if all was lost? We need to do the three “Ps” – Prepare (our hearts,) Pray without ceasing, and Practice acts of virtue and penance.The concepts of “the Holy Spirit protects the Church”, and “the gates of hell will not prevail” are things I’ve been thinking a lot about, but I’ve been unable to understand exactly what they mean.
For a long time I had in my head what I thought they meant. But things occured that demonstrated that I was wrong (things that I thought couldn’t happen, did happen), so I had to accept that my notions had been pretty naive.
Now, it’s hard for me to know what to think about those things because I know I’ve been wrong before, and because it’s hard to trust after you’ve been “burned”.
Maybe I’ve jumped from being too naive to being too cynical, I don’t know.
They don’t mean near as much as most modern Catholics, in thrall to neo-Ultramontanism, believe. “The Holy Spirit protects the Church” – from the formal teaching of doctrinal error. It does not protect her from confusion, ambiguity, uncertainty, predation, etc. It does not protect her from the *disregard *of doctrine or the promulgation of error or nonsense under guises other than formal doctrine, which is prevalent today (and which is certainly a fruit of the Devil).The concepts of “the Holy Spirit protects the Church”, and “the gates of hell will not prevail” are things I’ve been thinking a lot about, but I’ve been unable to understand exactly what they mean.
For a long time I had in my head what I thought they meant. But things occured that demonstrated that I was wrong (things that I thought couldn’t happen, did happen), so I had to accept that my notions had been pretty naive.
Now, it’s hard for me to know what to think about those things because I know I’ve been wrong before, and because it’s hard to trust after you’ve been “burned”.
Maybe I’ve jumped from being too naive to being too cynical, I don’t know.
Ed Peters has had some good commentary on his canon law blog on what could and could not be “streamlined” in the annulment process. The main one seems to be to do away with the automatic appeal in cases where a decree is granted. That seems reasonable to me. By and large, many of the processes in place are only utilized to increase the likelihood that a decree of nullity is granted. If you streamline the process too much, it seems like there will just be more denials, which will result in more appeals and then you’re back to doing all those things anyway.This is from Card Scherer, and it makes me (very) cautiously optimistic. Not that I think this anullment streamlining thing is a good idea, but it seems like it could be the compromise result, instead of communion for the remarried.
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/08/cardinal_scherer_synod_a_process_of_discernment/1108151
"Still, much talk of reform of Church practices preceded the convening of the Extraordinary Assembly, and that talk has raised both hopes and concerns. “Many people still think that there is no possibility to obtain a declaration of nullity [an ‘annulment’ in common parlance], or there is confusion – people still believe that [a declaration of marital] nullity is the same as a divorce, only it is not,” said Cardinal Scherer. “The Church is clear on this,” he continued, “what is missing is the real pastoral possibility,” for people to avail themselves of existing structures. “It is on this that there is much insistence,” explained the Cardinal-Archbishop of São Paulo, “on making the Canon Law services of the Church more pastoral, in order to help the couples who have a right to a sentence from the Church regarding their situation.”
What does “making Canon Law services more pastoral,” mean, on a practical level?
For Cardinal Scherer, the issue is primarily one of access to the Church’s legal system and education about what that system is designed – and not designed – to do. “In this vein, there is talk of ‘lightening’ the procedures in marriage nullity cases, of access to Church courts, [and] of ways to ‘streamline (It. Snellire – literally ‘to slim and tone’)’ the procedures so that cases do not take too long, or cost too much money [to adjudicate] for many people,” adding that the process can in some cases be extremely costly and time consuming. “This,” he said, “is a properly pastoral concern, rather than a question of legislative change.”
Ed Peters (and many of us) might look a bit foolish for debating little tweaks to details of the annulment process if much more drastic measures are taken by the SynodEd Peters has had some good commentary on his canon law blog on what could and could not be “streamlined” in the annulment process. The main one seems to be to do away with the automatic appeal in cases where a decree is granted. That seems reasonable to me. By and large, many of the processes in place are only utilized to increase the likelihood that a decree of nullity is granted. If you streamline the process too much, it seems like there will just be more denials, which will result in more appeals and then you’re back to doing all those things anyway.![]()