Open Thread for the Synod on the Family

[LongingSoul]

Thankyou for your post. I’ll contemplate your castigation. You do have the option to block me from view or to report me to the moderators.

 

[Joe_5859]

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?

Possibly, but probably not for nefarious reasons. With so much hullabloo about the interim report and the portions that were shoddily translated, I think it is very wise that they take a bit more time to make sure they get the translation right before putting it out there. That would be my guess as to the wait.

 

[Tigg]

ncregister.com/blog/joan-desmond/retiring-cardinal-george-weighs-in-on-the-synod-celibacy-and-politics

"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.

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.

Excellent! This, in a nutshell, is what so many have been saying all along.

 

[McCall1981]

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?

Possibly, but probably not for nefarious reasons. With so much hullabloo about the interim report and the portions that were shoddily translated, I think it is very wise that they take a bit more time to make sure they get the translation right before putting it out there. That would be my guess as to the wait.

Edward Pentin has an article on this subject here:

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/where-are-the-translations-of-synods-final-report

 

[Tigg]

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?

THIS is SO spot on! While remaining in a state of trust, I nevertheless, do not under-estimate the wiles of the enemy and the power of deception through sophisms.

 

[Joe_5859]

Edward Pentin has an article on this subject here:

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/where-are-the-translations-of-synods-final-report

He makes the point that this document is more important than the interim document, which is also a good point. I would also add that speed was somewhat necessary in the case of the interim document in order for the language groups to have something to work with during the second week of the Synod. For the final document, it’s not as much of an issue.

Pentin has also updated the article to say that the English translation is now on the Vatican website:

press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/18/0770/03044.html

For some reason, it is only on the Vatican Press site. It hasn’t yet made it’s way over to the Synod of Bishops page. I presume it will be there before too long.

 

[Philosoraptor]

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.

I’ve seen a lot of concern about this, both in the seminary and outside. A few considerations:

1. I am of the opinion that Pope Francis will (however frustratingly long it takes) publicly defend the Church’s tradition of marriage. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
2. My belief in the Vicar of Christ’s orthodoxy does not extend to each and every bishop, e.g. some German hierarchs. Back in 1968, a theological commission recommended to Paul VI that the ‘ban’ (as if it’s an arbitrary rule that can be changed at whim!) on contraception be lifted. It’s not implausible a similar recommendation qua the divorced/civilly remarried be proposed.
3. For the past fifty years or so, the Pope has been far more present to the average Catholic than ever before, and by no means is this necessarily a good thing. Papal infallibility means only that the Pope cannot solemnly define falsehood as the truth - nothing more. But because we haven’t had a wicked pope in the last five hundred years or so (thank God), there’s an assumption that the pope is always good.
4. If (theoretically) the Pope were a sex criminal like John XII, or a heretic, or everything we should be praying he not be, does this ruin everything? Nope. It would be pretty awful, but not the end of the world. As one writer puts it somewhat humorously:

“Recite these four sentences thrice daily till the Parousia - The Pope does not give us the Faith. The Pope is not the Faith. The Faith comes from God, not Rome. If the Pope loses his faith, I do not lose mine.”

1. So if the worst comes to worse, and the Pope actually teaches (without defining; the only modern teachings defined have been in the reigns of Pius IX and Pius XII) error, or permits bishops to do so…well that’s terrible, but not the end of the Church. It would then fall on the priesthood of the baptized to fast, pray, love God and neighbor more fiercely, do penance…and give their prelates a medieval taste of the sensus fidelium. Preferably with rotting fruits and vegetables.

 

[Tigg]

I’ve seen a lot of concern about this, both in the seminary and outside. A few considerations:

1. I am of the opinion that Pope Francis will (however frustratingly long it takes) publicly defend the Church’s tradition of marriage. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
2. My belief in the Vicar of Christ’s orthodoxy does not extend to each and every bishop, e.g. some German hierarchs. Back in 1968, a theological commission recommended to Paul VI that the ‘ban’ (as if it’s an arbitrary rule that can be changed at whim!) on contraception be lifted. It’s not implausible a similar recommendation qua the divorced/civilly remarried be proposed.
3. For the past fifty years or so, the Pope has been far more present to the average Catholic than ever before, and by no means is this necessarily a good thing. Papal infallibility means only that the Pope cannot solemnly define falsehood as the truth - nothing more. But because we haven’t had a wicked pope in the last five hundred years or so (thank God), there’s an assumption that the pope is always good.
4. If (theoretically) the Pope were a sex criminal like John XII, or a heretic, or everything we should be praying he not be, does this ruin everything? Nope. It would be pretty awful, but not the end of the world. As one writer puts it somewhat humorously:

“Recite these four sentences thrice daily till the Parousia - The Pope does not give us the Faith. The Pope is not the Faith. The Faith comes from God, not Rome. If the Pope loses his faith, I do not lose mine.”

1. So if the worst comes to worse, and the Pope actually teaches (without defining; the only modern teachings defined have been in the reigns of Pius IX and Pius XII) error, or permits bishops to do so…well that’s terrible, but not the end of the Church. It would then fall on the priesthood of the baptized to fast, pray, love God and neighbor more fiercely, do penance…and give their prelates a medieval taste of the sensus fidelium. Preferably with rotting fruits and vegetables.

I hear exactly what you’re saying but there is no comfort in your words to those who love the Church. It may not be the end of the world, but think of the weak in faith who might lose the last vestiges of their confidence in church teaching and the souls who may be lost as a consequence. And think of the encouragement it will give to the rebellious if enforcement of doctrine is null. aaah well, I must believe God’s grace is sufficient for us all.

And yes, our pastor has told us more than once now that the Church does not belong to the pope or the bishops, but only to Christ.

 

[Tobias2]

Another column by Rod Dreher commenting on evangelical convert Douthat’s very public struggle with all of this.

Douthat is trying to come to a sense on what orthodox Catholics should do if the marriage, divorce and communion teaching is effectively changed by the Pope.

Let me sketch a hypothetical that might help clarify this point. Suppose that a new pope were elected and immediately began elevating bishops and theologians who preached in favor of making more room for alternative Christologies within the Catholic Church, and particularly more room for Arianism, the famous fourth-century rival (periodically revived since) of the orthodox understanding of the trinity and Jesus Christ. These bishops and theologians argued that so long as the church didn’t technically change the language of the creed, there was no reason not to allow Arian ideas to be taught in seminaries, preached from the pulpit, and accepted as a kind of younger brother of orthodoxy, lesser in authority but equal in respect. They claimed (plausibly) that if you press them on theological questions about Jesus’s nature, many American Catholics are effectively Arian already, and deserve a church that’s more open to their perspective; they argued that many Christological debates now seem like theological nitpicking, and that a Catholicism that seemed a little more flexible on such points would be opening itself to fruitful ecumenical dialogue withthe Oriental Orthodox Churches; they noted that versions of the Arian position were endorsed by ecumenical councils, and surely those endorsements should carry at least some weight notwithstanding their later repudiation; they plucked out scriptural passages and post-Nicene theological speculations that seemed to incline in an Arian direction, etc. This argument led to a vigorous debate at a synod in Rome, which produced a divided vote, and a proposal to study the question further in advance of another, larger synod … in advance of which the pro-Arian party consistently insinuated, not without evidence, that the pontiff himself was on their side.
theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-catholic-party/

 

[Tobias2]

Another column by Rod Dreher commenting on evangelical convert Douthat’s very public struggle with all of this.

Douthat is trying to come to a sense on what orthodox Catholics should do if the marriage, divorce and communion teaching is effectively changed by the Pope.

Let me sketch a hypothetical that might help clarify this point. Suppose that a new pope were elected and immediately began elevating bishops and theologians who preached in favor of making more room for alternative Christologies within the Catholic Church, and particularly more room for Arianism, the famous fourth-century rival (periodically revived since) of the orthodox understanding of the trinity and Jesus Christ. These bishops and theologians argued that so long as the church didn’t technically change the language of the creed, there was no reason not to allow Arian ideas to be taught in seminaries, preached from the pulpit, and accepted as a kind of younger brother of orthodoxy, lesser in authority but equal in respect. They claimed (plausibly) that if you press them on theological questions about Jesus’s nature, many American Catholics are effectively Arian already, and deserve a church that’s more open to their perspective; they argued that many Christological debates now seem like theological nitpicking, and that a Catholicism that seemed a little more flexible on such points would be opening itself to fruitful ecumenical dialogue withthe Oriental Orthodox Churches; they noted that versions of the Arian position were endorsed by ecumenical councils, and surely those endorsements should carry at least some weight notwithstanding their later repudiation; they plucked out scriptural passages and post-Nicene theological speculations that seemed to incline in an Arian direction, etc. This argument led to a vigorous debate at a synod in Rome, which produced a divided vote, and a proposal to study the question further in advance of another, larger synod … in advance of which the pro-Arian party consistently insinuated, not without evidence, that the pontiff himself was on their side.

**In this scenario, would it be reasonable to suggest that Catholics who consider themselves orthodox should put aside any and all anxieties, refrain from public criticism of the drift of the ecclesiastical authorities, and simply prepare to submit themselves with docility to the authority of the church? I don’t think the answer can be yes, and indeed I think that to answer yes is to basically vindicate a common Protestant critique of Roman Catholicism: That it’s just a purely sola ecclesia communion, in which Rome could say that black is white tomorrow and Catholics would have to tug their forelock and start repainting crosswalks outside their churches.

**
theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-catholic-party/

 

[Joe_5859]

They’ve got the English version of the final Relatio up on the Vatican website now:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20141018_relatio-synodi-familia_en.html

They’ve got a typo in that they label both paragraphs 1 and 2 as “1”. So that makes all the numbering for the rest of the document off by one. Otherwise, it’s there.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’ve seen a lot of concern about this, both in the seminary and outside. A few considerations:

1. I am of the opinion that Pope Francis will (however frustratingly long it takes) publicly defend the Church’s tradition of marriage. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
2. My belief in the Vicar of Christ’s orthodoxy does not extend to each and every bishop, e.g. some German hierarchs. Back in 1968, a theological commission recommended to Paul VI that the ‘ban’ (as if it’s an arbitrary rule that can be changed at whim!) on contraception be lifted. It’s not implausible a similar recommendation qua the divorced/civilly remarried be proposed.
3. For the past fifty years or so, the Pope has been far more present to the average Catholic than ever before, and by no means is this necessarily a good thing. Papal infallibility means only that the Pope cannot solemnly define falsehood as the truth - nothing more. But because we haven’t had a wicked pope in the last five hundred years or so (thank God), there’s an assumption that the pope is always good.
4. If (theoretically) the Pope were a sex criminal like John XII, or a heretic, or everything we should be praying he not be, does this ruin everything? Nope. It would be pretty awful, but not the end of the world. As one writer puts it somewhat humorously:

“Recite these four sentences thrice daily till the Parousia - The Pope does not give us the Faith. The Pope is not the Faith. The Faith comes from God, not Rome. If the Pope loses his faith, I do not lose mine.”

1. So if the worst comes to worse, and the Pope actually teaches (without defining; the only modern teachings defined have been in the reigns of Pius IX and Pius XII) error, or permits bishops to do so…well that’s terrible, but not the end of the Church. It would then fall on the priesthood of the baptized to fast, pray, love God and neighbor more fiercely, do penance…and give their prelates a medieval taste of the sensus fidelium. Preferably with rotting fruits and vegetables.

Thank you, whoever you are. This is great.

 

[McCall1981]

Card Baldasseri on the Synod:

zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-baldisseri-s-address-to-british-parliamentarians-on-2014-synod

 

[LongingSoul]

"This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy(…). It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem.”

This is Pope Francis’ real strong point. He can evoke the experience of being an original witness to Jesus in dusty, hot Jerusalem where we first hear His voice giving us permission to love first to make others hungry for the food of life we eat!

 

[Cranch]

Interesting omission.

commonwealmagazine.org/blog/proceed-caution

 

[sennincatholic]

how could such a mistake even be possible.I guess i’ll just have to learn Italian and Latin inorder to be reading church documents directly from the source

 

[CHCL]

Interesting omission.

commonwealmagazine.org/blog/proceed-caution

 

[Joe_5859]

how could such a mistake even be possible.I guess i’ll just have to learn Italian and Latin inorder to be reading church documents directly from the source

Well, it’s the end of a sentence at the end of a paragraph at the end of a section of the document. So if ever there was a place to inadvertently leave off a sentence clause, that seems like a probable place to make such an omission.

It does make me want to learn Italian and Latin, though.

 

[sennincatholic]

Well, it’s the end of a sentence at the end of a paragraph at the end of a section of the document. So if ever there was a place to inadvertently leave off a sentence clause, that seems like a probable place to make such an omission.

It does make me want to learn Italian and Latin, though.

 

[Jesus_123]

Interesting omission.

commonwealmagazine.org/blog/proceed-caution

Thank’s so much for sharing Cranch . . . just in case a reader didn’t click onto the internet link . . . I thought this sharing really deserved to be included in the open text of this thread . . .

:coffeeread:

“There has been much helpful discussion, in various and diverse posts here and elsewhere, regarding the recently concluded Extraordinary Synod on the Family. The long delayed English translation of the final Relatio has now been published on the Vatican website.

I’ve been reading it in preparation for putting together some reflections, and already I’ve noticed some problems with the translation. Let me point to a particularly egregious one.

Here is the English paragraph:

1. With these words in mind, we have gathered together the results of our reflections and our discussions in the following three parts: listening, looking at the situation of the family today in all its complexities, both lights and shadows; looking, our gaze is fixed on Christ to re-evaluate, with renewed freshness and enthusiasm, what revelation, transmitted in the Church’s faith, tells us about the beauty and dignity of the family; and facing the situation, with an eye on the Lord Jesus, to discern how the Church and society can renew their commitment to the family.

And here is the*** Italian***:

1. Alla luce dello stesso discorso abbiamo raccolto i risultati delle nostre riflessioni e dei nostri dialoghi nelle seguenti tre parti: l’ascolto, per guardare alla realtà della famiglia oggi, nella complessità delle sue luci e delle sue ombre; lo sguardo fisso sul Cristo per ripensare con rinnovata freschezza ed entusiasmo quanto la rivelazione, trasmessa nella fede della Chiesa, ci dice sulla bellezza, sul ruolo e sulla dignità della famiglia; il confronto alla luce del Signore Gesù per discernere le vie con cui rinnovare la Chiesa e la società nel loro impegno per la famiglia fondata sul matrimonio tra uomo e donna.

One notices at once the difference in paragraph numeration which can certainly cause confusion. But more serious is the omission from the last sentence of the English of the all-important: "the family founded upon the marriage between man and woman."

I would appreciate any assistance in discerning further discrepancies by those who are in a position to compare the two texts.”

In dedication to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed LORD+
. . . thank You Gracious Heavenly Father+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​