Open Thread for the Synod on the Family

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting reply by Rod Dreher to Ross Douhat’s recent piece.

**Changing the Catholic Church’s teaching or practice (a distinction that may be without a meaningful difference) on marriage as Pope Francis and his team want to do is very far from “an inessential thing,” in Zmirak’s phrase, but it is at least changing the flag. This matters more than many people think.

**theamericanconservative.com/dreher/changing-catholic-flag-douthat/

Key words “teaching versus practice”. How vague is that line? How much can the Pope and bishops change? My priest is now saying female deacons are on the horizon and within the dogma of the church. I dunno.
 
Good article. Mirrors my own thinking.
I guess what is happening is a choice between being a cultural Catholic or being a spiritual Catholic. Lots of people want to be Cultural Catholic and go to church every Sunday and receive fully. They want Christianity to be only about easy love, total acceptance. But the spiritual Catholics want themselves and the others to be worthy to receive. Being a real Catholic is a hard, not easy thing to be or practice.
There’s not on.y a spiritual difference but an I tellectual and practical difference between the two attitudes.

I’m not not to receive just now, and I believe that’s in the process of changing.
But even if it didn’t I would still be in the Spiritual Catholic camp.
If I wanted to be Anglican, I’d go to their churches. I don’t.
 
Tobias2 said:
Interesting reply by Rod Dreher to Ross Douhat’s recent piece.

**Changing the Catholic Church’s teaching or practice (a distinction that may be without a meaningful difference) on marriage as Pope Francis and his team want to do is very far from “an inessential thing,” in Zmirak’s phrase, but it is at least changing the flag. This matters more than many people think.

**theamericanconservative.com/dreher/changing-catholic-flag-douthat/

Key words “teaching versus practice”. How vague is that line? How much can the Pope and bishops change? My priest is now saying female deacons are on the horizon and within the dogma of the church. I dunno.
Click to expand...
I found this little nugget interesting:

"The perception that the Church was in a constant state of doctrinal flux was confirmed by the reality that her most central, sacred mystery was being monkeyed with – almost every year. I remember being in grammar school when they told us, “The pope wants us to receive Communion in the hand now.” (He didn’t; it was an abuse that was forced on the Vatican through relentless disobedience until it became a local norm, but never mind.)

Then, a few years later, “The pope wants us to stand for Communion.” A few more grades, and we heard, “The pope wants us to go to Confession face to face.” What had seemed a solid bulwark of formality and seriousness was suddenly shifting with every year’s hemlines – which is precisely what the heretics conspiring to change the Church’s teaching had in mind. That is why they pushed for these futile, pastorally destructive changes of “inessentials” – as a way of beating down resistance to changing essentials."
 
Deltadeliquent said:
Good article. Mirrors my own thinking.
I guess what is happening is a choice between being a cultural Catholic or being a spiritual Catholic. Lots of people want to be Cultural Catholic and go to church every Sunday and receive fully. They want Christianity to be only about easy love, total acceptance. But the spiritual Catholics want themselves and the others to be worthy to receive. Being a real Catholic is a hard, not easy thing to be or practice.
There’s not on.y a spiritual difference but an I tellectual and practical difference between the two attitudes.

I’m not not to receive just now, and I believe that’s in the process of changing.
But even if it didn’t I would still be in the Spiritual Catholic camp.
If I wanted to be Anglican, I’d go to their churches. I don’t.
Click to expand...
👍

I agree with every word. One other thing to note on the Anglicans, Methodists, ELCA et al., and I am only remarking here, not expressing an opinion, is that they are very welcoming to the culture, even to the point of hanging big rainbow flags on their front entrance or marquee. What is odd is that no one, gays or otherwise, goes! Every year, the mainstream Protestant churches lose members.**** I can’t figure out why that doesn’t discourage some of our Culture Catholics. Likewise, the “Francis effect” has brought no real discernable numbers of culturally based God seekers into the Church. I know this point has been made exhaustively over and over (George Weigel among many others hits it hard), but it’s worth repeating as much as needed - not only has this been tried before and failed, but even that example before us is not even acknowledged or considered - it totally defies logic. This should stir up concern in Catholics. Why doesn’t it?

And, yes, Christianity is denial of self to the will of God. It’s embracing a Cross. Christianity is actually not about removing suffering. It’s about using it to redeem ourselves. We’re not turning stones into bread. Sorry to say, but one of the best ways in life to develop a little humanity is to suffer! “Healing” is about removing sin, not removing suffering.
 
mlz said:
“Gradualism” is removed??? Really…I hope so. I am a convert from the ELCA Lutheran Church before becoming Catholic and I can assure you the devil used a “gradual” approach to take down the ELCA by slowly allowing little by little acceptance of sin as loving acceptance of others to come forth…now the ELCA accepts active (not celebate…although this was first accepted as a “gradual” transition) gay pastors to shepherd their flocks. The evil one works in this way and is attacking the Catholic Church. Do NOT be decieved!!! “Gradualism” is a way that we are to slowly get use to the sin and accept it as a “loving” way of accepting others…this is a LIE from the pit of HELL!!!
mlz
Click to expand...
I agree with you 1000% on this one! The term ‘gradualism’ that we hear bantered about with the before, during and after Synod has so many holes in it one doesn’t even know where to begin! Same to me is ‘accompaniment’. ‘Accompany’ the irregular unions thru their process of ‘gradual’ conversion and in the mean time accept them to the sacraments? So they feel they can ‘rightfully’ commit sacralege? That part they haven’t made clear, but I would PRAY not. So…how DO THEY ‘accompany’ these people in ‘gradualism’? Do they counsel them and tell them when they have accepted the true teachings of the Church and are able to rectify their ‘irregularity’ they can at last receive the sacraments? Somehow, to me, this doesn’t sound either logical OR workable. And so, I wonder what the plan will be? The 64 million dollar question.

Also we hear of a PASTORAL solution. We hear this from everyone including the Holy Father. They state affirmatively they WILL NOT try to compromise Doctrine. Doctrine stands as it is and always has been. But, a Pastoral solution cannot be separated from Doctrine. In other words, they must Pastor ACCORDING to Doctrine. You cannot Pastor in the opposite direction from Doctrine. That would be akin to …well…basically throwing Doctrine out the window. A ‘Pastoral solution’ MUST MIRROR Doctrine. I heard something troubling from Cdl. Weurl that went something like this: ‘Distribution of Holy Communion is not a ‘Doctrinal’ practice…it is Pastoral.’ That’s pretty much ver batim. I don’t know how anyone could feel comfortable with that statement. I saw this in a video clip, and right away saw RED FLAGS all over the place. I seem to feel with more than a few of these prelates, objective truth is not to be taken so ‘objectively’. A slippery slope could easily turn into a landslide of immorality in the name of ‘MERCY.’
 
Deltadeliquent said:
Good article. Mirrors my own thinking.
I guess what is happening is a choice between being a cultural Catholic or being a spiritual Catholic. Lots of people want to be Cultural Catholic and go to church every Sunday and receive fully. They want Christianity to be only about easy love, total acceptance. But the spiritual Catholics want themselves and the others to be worthy to receive. Being a real Catholic is a hard, not easy thing to be or practice.
There’s not on.y a spiritual difference but an I tellectual and practical difference between the two attitudes.

I’m not not to receive just now, and I believe that’s in the process of changing.
But even if it didn’t I would still be in the Spiritual Catholic camp.
If I wanted to be Anglican, I’d go to their churches. I don’t.
Click to expand...
Yes.

As to Douhat:

** but my understanding of papal authority would be changed in ways that would inevitably change my underlying relationship to the church**

These words ring true. Can’t speak for all converts but it was the continuity and nature of Papal authority and the Church that in the end led me to convert. Despite having issues with Marian dogmas. I pushed those aside submitting to the church’s teaching on this as an outgrowth of my acceptance of the historic teaching on Papal authority and the Church.

These were the key arguments of Hahn and Staples and others that I read during my spiritual journey.

These changes would bring a change in my understanding of the church. Hahn/Staples and other evangelical converts have brought in many to the church. How would such changes impact this group? Or those on the journey?

Its very problematic and no one knows where the seeming progressive agenda emerging in the church will end. But it is cause for deep concern for some.
 
sttcatherinefan said:
Confront the root cause of their relationship? Like discussing it in spiritual direction for months with your pastor which is the Orthodox solution? That is what a penitential path is. And the issue is that most people drop out of the annulment process or take one look at it or don’t start it.

What we are really talking about here is the fact that some marriages fail and the Catholic Church doesn’t want to punish people, especially people who are innocent victims, for the rest of their lives. What is the best way to go about doing this? I think that the current overly legalistic process is like rubbing salt in people’s wounds. I don’t think that it heals their wounds.
Click to expand...
👍 Great Post.
 
It seems that an increasing problem for the Church in an age of family and social breakdown is this: How can we ignore the teachings of Jesus while pretending not to do so?
 
Does anyone know if and when the english translation for the final synod document will be out? I haven’t been able to find it…just in the Italian. Any info on this is appreciated. thanks.
 
Riley259 said:
Does anyone know if and when the english translation for the final synod document will be out? I haven’t been able to find it…just in the Italian. Any info on this is appreciated. thanks.
Click to expand...
It’s not out yet, but is suppossed to be out “soon”, whatever that means. Originally people thought it would be out last week.
 
McCall1981 said:
It’s not out yet, but is suppossed to be out “soon”, whatever that means. Originally people thought it would be out last week.
Click to expand...
Amazing that they were able to get the English translation of the controversal midterm document out the same day but taking weeks to get this one out. Purposeful?
 
Does this conflict Papal Infallibility? I’ve heard a few people say it did but the people I saw say it never specified how it does
 
McCall1981 said:
What are you referring to?
Click to expand...
New decisions in the synod on marriage and stuff. Apparently these conflict with past statements. I was just wondering if this had any truth to it since I’ve never seen someone who specified why it did.
 
randomusername said:
New decisions in the synod on marriage and stuff. Apparently these conflict with past statements. I was just wondering if this had any truth to it since I’ve never seen someone who specified why it did.
Click to expand...
This Synod didn’t make any decisions. There won’t be any decisions until after the Synod next Oct, and even then nothing will be official until the Pope’s exhortation (probably early 2016).

The final doc that emerged from this Synod doesn’t conflict with anything though. People were concerned about the tone of the mid-Synod report, but it was significantly revised.
 
ncregister.com/blog/joan-desmond/retiring-cardinal-george-weighs-in-on-the-synod-celibacy-and-politics

Great commentary from Cardinal George on the Synod:

Cardinal George offered equally incisive comments on the recent Synod debate over possible modifications of Church discipline for Catholics who have divorced and remarried:

“The process of judging the sacramentality of a marriage is one that should be thoroughly re-thought; but it has to remain a process outside of the forum of conscience alone. No one is a judge in his own case, as the proverb has it. Self-delusion is a danger that has to be addressed in the forum of courts or their equivalent. I have heard many good suggestions about how to improve the present system of granting annulments. I hope they will be acted on. Pastoral practice, of course, must also reflect doctrinal conviction. It is not “merciful” to tell people lies, as if the church had authority to give anyone permission to ignore God’s law. If the parties to a sacramental marriage are both alive, then what Christ did in uniting them cannot be undone, unless a bishop thinks he is Lord of the universe. The difficulty of giving communion to parties in a non-sacramental marriage doesn’t stem from their having sinned by entering into a non-sacramental union. Like any sin, that can be forgiven. The difficulty comes from avoiding the consequences of living in such a union. It is foolish to believe that a publicly approved although “restricted” exception to the “discipline” around the sacrament will remain “restricted” very long. When speaking of acting “pastorally,” a bishop has to ask what is good for the entire church, not just what might be helpful to an individual couple. How the entire pastoral conversation around marriage will change with a change of “discipline” is a question that must be answered before making any other decision.”
 
Tobias2 said:
Yes.

As to Douhat:

** but my understanding of papal authority would be changed in ways that would inevitably change my underlying relationship to the church**

These words ring true. Can’t speak for all converts but it was the continuity and nature of Papal authority and the Church that in the end led me to convert.
Click to expand...
I was wondering if sometimes we mix up our personality traits with our faith? Some people have a general preference for continuity and what is familiar but others have a preference for lots of different experiences and re-invention.

For example, my husband hates change of any sort. He’d be happy to be born, live and die in the same house forever. I on the other hand need the occasional change to cull all the rubbish that you accumulate and have a fresh start. The family is still the family whether we stay put or move. The family is the unchanging variable here, not the accommodation. That’s the way you could look at the doctrines now being revisited in relation to the needs of today. We know what the unchanging variable is because the Church is continually stating it as the discussion continues. What God has united, let no man put asunder.

One of the side benefits of all these discussions in the Church may be a clearer understanding of the role of the Pope and the nature of the papacy.
 
LongingSoul said:
I was wondering if sometimes we mix up our personality traits with our faith? Some people have a general preference for continuity and what is familiar but others have a preference for lots of different experiences and re-invention.
Click to expand...
I have found many of your psts in past 2 weeks very condenscending and patronizing, bordering on rude. Here you are dismissing what someone says are his reasons for coming to the church, and you just assume they were not based on rational thought but some pseudo-psychological mumbo jumbo about how he mixes faith with personality traits.:mad: I really would urge you to rethink the way you approach other people. Either they mistrust the Holy Spirit, or are suffering from pride unlike your humble self, or are “not cradle catholics” but protestant converts, or have “personality traits” that make them incapable of approaching things like you. Here’s a tip—address the points that people put forward as arguments on their own merits. Keep your psychological analyses about their personalities or motives to yourself, please. A little thing called respect.:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top