Questions on the synod and Church infallibility

[OraLabora]

There is no good in sin nor is it valid to bless sinful behavior.

I am only reporting what is going on. The Church is still the Church, and I am still a layman. Bishops are allowed to discuss issues among themselves. Eventually the Church will decide and it will then be up to the bishops to line up behind the Holy Father.

 

[OraLabora]

It is remarkable that whenever the faithful raise concerns about matters that will affect us we are told to shut up and not be concerned about other people’ sins. Well, I hate to tell you but if we have bishops promoting such stuff then the faith will be compromised and that will have consequences. People will be taught false doctrine for a start. How does that not affect me and every other Catholic? I’m in a position - as a parent - to say to my children that what some bishops are saying is a lie and that they should look elsewhere for authority in teaching. How is this not a huge problem and a very practical issue?

Worrying about it gnaws away at our faith. It is the devil’s tool to undermine our trust in Christ and the promise he made to St. Peter.

Unless we have complete trust in Jesus, our faith is in grave danger.

Rather than tell your children that the bishops are lying, why not say that they are simply discussing matters, expressing opinions, and that eventually, the Truth will prevail because Jesus told us to trust in His promise?

PS: A heartfelt expression of opinion, no matter how wrong, is not lying. It is OK to say that they are “wrong” if that’s the case, but to imply that they are lying implies uncharitable motives and I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.

 

[Thomas_White]

Example: the meeting that took place in Rome the other day. How are we supposed to understand that? Exercise in faithfulness and orthodoxy?
Can they be trusted to teach the true faith?

Was this perhaps the meeting to which you refer?

ncronline.org/news/vatican/study-day-synod-did-not-aim-change-doctrine-spokesman-says

This was a discussion of complex issues, and it’s small wonder the participants didn’t want the media present. The article reports that one of the points made by one of the participants was that, “God may be present in a faithful homosexual union.” Was this perhaps an example of a lie?

In Book 2 of the ‘Confessions’, St. Augustine attempts to refute the heresy that evil is a separate substance in God’s Creation. He goes about this by seeking an answer for why it was, while a teenager, he went along with his cohorts when they stole pears from a farmer, pears Augustine neither desired nor needed. He allows that the act was a sin. He concludes that his motivation for participation in the act was a desire for companionship and an effort to preserve that companionship. He sees this as good. He also asserts that this very motivation is present at the core of many sins. He further concludes that this does not mean that the act was not sinful but only that some element of good was present.

For Augustine at least, it is not wrong and certainly not a lie to look for the good in God’s Creation.

 

[SolomonGrundy]

I’m sure you may all be sick of hearing about the synod but I have some genuine concerns to the extent that it’s almost becoming a (mini) crisis of faith for me.

I reverted to the Catholic in 2013 and one of the main reasons (among others) was the infallibility of the Catholic Church and the doctrinal certainty that Protestantism could not provide.

I’m a bit slow with the news so I have only know started to learn about the synod on the family and I have some questions regarding it and its impact (if any) on the infallibility of the Church.

From what I can gather, some of the items of concern are gay marriage and communion for the divorced and re-married.

Hypothetically, if the synod, with Pope Francis’ approval did approve of gay marriage, this would then certainly be the gates of hell overcoming the Church, would it not?

The second point I’m not so sure about. If the synod did allow for communion for the divorced and re-married, is this just a matter of bad discipline, or would also be an example of the gates of hell overcoming the Church?

I am also quite concerned about the number of bishops and cardinals that seem to be intent on implementing their liberal agendas in the Church. I have seen others here have similar concerns. Is it not the duty of the shepherds to protect their flock from such wolves? I’m sure ex-communication is not an easy, painless process but surely for the good of the Church there must be a consideration to remove these people from positions of authority?

Please help to allay my concerns if you can.

Your questions and concerns are valid. If (and that is a big if) ‘the church’ decides to change one iota of standing doctrine in order to become more ‘charitable’, that would indicate that ‘the church’ is not the Church. THE true Church would still be around…we’d just have to go find it.

Look, the synod will not do or change anything, so fear not. They will produce tons of paperwork and there will be early leaks to the press and the final versions will contain ‘nice’ language and most of it will be purposefully vague.

 

[porthos11]

Even if the hypothetical situation that you mentioned were to occur, it would not mean that the gates of hell had prevailed over the Church. You have to consider this - let’s just say that a giant meteor comes and wipes out all the Bishops, the Pope and the Vatican during the synod. The chair of Peter is empty, major church hierarchy has been eliminated. Is Catholicism dead? Of course not. The Catholic Church still exists regardless of what happens or changes on earth because it is based on truth, it was built upon Christ and exists in the spiritual realm even if the physical realm turns to dust and passes away. The Church is not a Pope, nor is it a place. So long as there is Christ there will always be the Church, His bride. Truth still exists even if an errant Pope decides to alter Church teaching. He can do so in the material sense - but the Church’s truth remains unaltered in God’s eyes, and in the eyes of those who truly live in God.

Um, no, sorry. If ALL bishops in the world die, as in not a single bishop survives, the Church is dead and what Christ said, if he ever said it at all, would be proven to be false.

Of course, if only the bishops (including the pope), were wiped out who were attending the Synod, then in the grand scheme of things, it’s no big deal because for as long as there are other bishops in the world, the Church continues.

 

[Thomas_White]

Was this perhaps the meeting to which you refer?

ncronline.org/news/vatican/study-day-synod-did-not-aim-change-doctrine-spokesman-says

This was a discussion of complex issues, and it’s small wonder the participants didn’t want the media present. The article reports that one of the points made by one of the participants was that, “God may be present in a faithful homosexual union.” Was this perhaps an example of a lie?

In Book 2 of the ‘Confessions’, St. Augustine attempts to refute the heresy that evil is a separate substance in God’s Creation. He goes about this by seeking an answer for why it was, while a teenager, he went along with his cohorts when they stole pears from a farmer, pears Augustine neither desired nor needed. He allows that the act was a sin. He concludes that his motivation for participation in the act was a desire for companionship and an effort to preserve that companionship. He sees this as good. He also asserts that this very motivation is present at the core of many sins. He further concludes that this does not mean that the act was not sinful but only that some element of good was present.

For Augustine at least, it is not wrong and certainly not a lie to look for the good in God’s Creation.

Edit for clarification: The point mentioned above that was made by one of the participants (“God may be present in a humosexual union”) was presented only as a question for discussion and not as an assertion or conclusion.

 

[edwest2]

I think guessing, and fear about what may or may not happen is inappropriate. The Pope will have the final say, just as Pope Paul VI had the final say after his advisers made their recommendations prior to 1968.

There is no reason to fear. Christ Himself promised the gates of Hell will not prevail.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JackVk]

It is remarkable that whenever the faithful raise concerns about matters that will affect us we are told to shut up and not be concerned about other people’ sins. Well, I hate to tell you but if we have bishops promoting such stuff then the faith will be compromised and that will have consequences. People will be taught false doctrine for a start. How does that not affect me and every other Catholic? I’m in a position - as a parent - to say to my children that what some bishops are saying is a lie and that they should look elsewhere for authority in teaching. How is this not a huge problem and a very practical issue?

Apologist Dave Armstrong addressed this concern perfectly: our faith is not in the bishops. Catholic dogma cannot change, and is out there for all to come to know. At the Pearly Gates, “my bishop said blah blah blah” will not be an excuse.

Also, as stated earlier, anyone who knows Church history that such doctrinal/dogmatic shakiness among the bishops is nothing new. The Church has been through far worse crises and come up smelling like roses.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Rather than tell your children that the bishops are lying, why not say that they are simply discussing matters, expressing opinions, and that eventually, the Truth will prevail because Jesus told us to trust in His promise?

PS: A heartfelt expression of opinion, no matter how wrong, is not lying. It is OK to say that they are “wrong” if that’s the case, but to imply that they are lying implies uncharitable motives and I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.

Perhaps. But I still wonder if what these bishops are trying to achieve is being downplayed by the attitude that we must always assume the best about people, despite the evidence of the contrary. I sincerely hope I am wrong, though.

Apologist Dave Armstrong addressed this concern perfectly: our faith is not in the bishops. Catholic dogma cannot change, and is out there for all to come to know. At the Pearly Gates, “my bishop said blah blah blah” will not be an excuse.
.

Very true. But on the other hand we are supposed to trust them and support them. So how do we reconcile the two? I am asking this as someone who wants to do the right thing. I’m not interested in participating in tearing down the church.

 

[Thomas_White]

I would say this is being very flexible about the teaching on human sexuality and Christian love.

You completely miss the point. The good in such a relationship would not involve human sexuality at all.

 

[Mark121359]

First off, no way on this earth that the RCC will ever allow so-called SSM. Or for that matter as one poster said; “finding some good in same-sex unions and perhaps blessing those unions.” Again, the Church could never, ever “bless” such unions. Catholic doctrine can’t simply do a 180! But I have to say, for those Catholics that hope for such a scenario, I’d be careful…for you’d see a rupture in the Church like you’ve never seen in our lifetime! Do you actually think for one moment that all bishops, cardinals, religious and laity would jump on board and accept this reversal in teaching? No way! There would be one heck of a major split. Words like heresy and schism would be bandied about. It would get real ugly. So relax. I can’t imagine that the hierarchy could ever allow such a thing to happen.

Peace, Mark

 

[JackVk]

First off, no way on this earth that the RCC will ever allow so-called SSM. Or for that matter as one poster said; “finding some good in same-sex unions and perhaps blessing those unions.” Again, the Church could never, ever “bless” such unions. Catholic doctrine can’t simply do a 180! But I have to say, for those Catholics that hope for such a scenario, I’d be careful…for you’d see a rupture in the Church like you’ve never seen in our lifetime! Do you actually think for one moment that all bishops, cardinals, religious and laity would jump on board and accept this reversal in teaching? No way! There would be one heck of a major split. Words like heresy and schism would be bandied about. It would get real ugly. So relax. I can’t imagine that the hierarchy could ever allow such a thing to happen.

Peace, Mark

Agreed. If the Synod hypothetically did try to legitimize such unions in the eyes of the Church it would cause such a shiz-storm of negative consequences. And I think the Church hierarchy is smart enough to know this.

As for myself, I can rest easily; I am in Kansas City, Kansas under the faithful, orthodox Archbishop Joseph Naumann. I don’t have to worry.

 

[alphawoman]

You’ve received some thoughtful answers above. I’d urge you to pray the rosary daily for clarity on the Church’s infallibility. Here’s how:

rosary-center.org/howto.htm#loaded

Remember, there is nothing more powerful or enduring than God. Jesus bestowed the Holy Spirit upon the Church and promised never to leave it. If you believe in God, then everything else falls into place. Trust in Him, love Him, and He will never abandon you.

 

[alphawoman]

Edit for clarification: The point mentioned above that was made by one of the participants (“God may be present in a humosexual union”) was presented only as a question for discussion and not as an assertion or conclusion.

I’d just like to say that I appreciate your well considered and articulate posts in this thread, Thomas White. Thank you!

 

[Thomas_White]

Do you actually think for one moment that all bishops, cardinals, religious and laity would jump on board and accept this reversal in teaching?

So relax.

Peace, Mark

No, of course not and yes, relax. Learn what is actually being said and why Catholic bishops are saying it. The issues are complex, and I think perhaps what is needed is more faith in the synod. It’s pretty clear that there is significant misunderstanding.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

You completely miss the point. The good in such a relationship would not involve human sexuality at all.

I’m sorry, but I think you are very naïve if you believe that. Such theorising of homosexuality has absolutely no resemblance to real life whatsoever.

From Bishop Koch: “To portray homosexuality as a sin is hurtful. I know gay couples who value reliability and commitment and live these in an exemplary manner.”

This is what the German move is all about: abolition of sin and normalisation of homosexual behaviour.

 

[Thomas_White]

I’m sorry, but I think you are very naïve if you believe that. Such theorising of homosexuality has absolutely no resemblance to real life whatsoever.

From Bishop Koch: “To portray homosexuality as a sin is hurtful. I know gay couples who value reliability and commitment and live these in an exemplary manner.”

This is what the German move is all about: abolition of sin and normalisation of homosexual behaviour.

My comment was not about what I might believe. I was attempting to explain a concept in the “Confessions” of St. Augustine; it does not involve theorizing about homosexuality. Applying the concept in Augustine’s example to the question of a homosexual relationship, homosexual acts would be the sin. However, this would not necessarily mean there could not otherwise be an element of good in the relationship. That’s all.

But your point is well taken. The quote from Bishop Koch is concerning and goes way beyond what Augustine was saying. I don’t see how it could possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Church, which is that homosexual acts are sinful.

 

[fasolislithuan]

I’m sorry, but I think you are very naïve if you believe that. Such theorising of homosexuality has absolutely no resemblance to real life whatsoever.

From Bishop Koch: “To portray homosexuality as a sin is hurtful. I know gay couples who value reliability and commitment and live these in an exemplary manner.”

This is what the German move is all about: abolition of sin and normalisation of homosexual behaviour.

Well, it’s pausible that many bishops can fail in real life claiming that homosexuality is not a sin but it’s impossible that Christ’s Church preaches in an eventual future that homosexuality is not a sin. The reason is easy. Because then that Church wouldn’t be Christ’s Church. So, many bishops can say whatever they want about homosexuality but catholics know undoubtedly that homosexuality is a sin. It’s a century-old moral teaching of the Catholic Church and cannot be changed by one bishop, many bishops or even all bishops. In the same way, the arian bishops in the 4th century weren’t able to change the trinitarian dogma of ‘homousios’ and the divinity of Jesus. There were a lot of bishops (the majority) that fell in heresy in this age, they preached against Holy Trinity and they didn’t overcome the Church. Bishop Koch can claim whatever but he knows and we know that he cannot overcome the Church.

It doesn’t matter how many bishops claim homosexuality is not a sin , this cannot change the fact that homosexuality is a sin. At the end of the day there will be a Church with bishops and apostolic sucession that will continue preaching (against the whole word if would be necessary) that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Vico]

Was this perhaps the meeting to which you refer?

ncronline.org/news/vatican/study-day-synod-did-not-aim-change-doctrine-spokesman-says

This was a discussion of complex issues, and it’s small wonder the participants didn’t want the media present. The article reports that one of the points made by one of the participants was that, “God may be present in a faithful homosexual union.” Was this perhaps an example of a lie?..

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published this March 30, 2012:**Homosexual acts
**
Sr. Farley writes: “My own view… is that same-sex relationships and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities. Therefore, same-sex oriented persons as well as their activities can and should be respected whether or not they have a choice to be otherwise” (p. 295).

This opinion is not acceptable. The Catholic Church, in fact, distinguishes between persons with homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts. Concerning persons with homosexual tendencies, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”[2]. Concerning homosexual acts, however, the Catechism affirms: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”[3].

**Homosexual unions
**Sr. Farley writes: “Legislation for nondiscrimination against homosexuals, but also for domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage, can also be important in transforming the hatred, rejection, and stigmatization of gays and lesbians that is still being reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous love. … Presently one of the most urgent issues before the U.S. public is marriage for same-sex partners – that is, the granting of social recognition and legal standing to unions between lesbians and gays comparable to unions between heterosexuals” (p. 293).

This position is opposed to the teaching of the Magisterium: “The Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself”[4]. “The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it”[5].

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20120330_nota-farley_en.html

 

[Nic1099]

So rest assured that even though the times are tough, what is happening now regarding these heterodox bishops is not the end of the church. Pray for strength and faith, daily. This is the only thing that helps me keep a positive attitude and inner peace.

Agreed Contra Mundum. Here also is a link to a petition to the Holy Father regarding the upcoming synod for those who wish to add their support.

tfpstudentaction.org/sign-petition-to-pope-francis.html