Synod offers striking softening to remarried, proposing individual discernment

[pnewton]

The pronoun, though, is WHOever, not WHEREever, so it would seem to be in reference to people who do not hear, who reject what the disciples have to say, not cities.

The reference to hearing, is critical, as it is a rejection of the message that the disciples are teaching, not merely to a lack of hospitality.

Okay, here is the rest. Yes, he is speaking of people, but as a group, in other words as city, which is not a place only, but is also a group of people.

• But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of **your town **we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

13 “Woe to you**, Chorazin**! Woe to you,** Bethsaida**! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you,** Capernaum**, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.*

In Mark:

• “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9 Wear sandals but not an extra shirt. 10 Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11 And if** any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them**.”*

As to the actual pronoun used, if you give me the verse that you got that from, I will look up the Greek word for you, as pronouns do not always translate from language to language. Still, yes, he is speaking of people, as was I.

 

[Brendan]

One other thing that I have not seen commented on in any of the reference articles is the caveat on paragraph 85

It is therefore the task of pastors to accompany interested persons on the way of discernment in keeping with the teaching of the Church and the guidance of bishops.

That 'teaching of the Church" reference puts the guidelines of this discernment primarily under the auspices of Cardinal Müller. The CDWDS is the primary Congregation for defining what Church teaching universally entails.

I do not think that such is very comforting to proponents of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal.

 

[LongingSoul]

Check this out by George Weigel:

Those Three Paragraphs in the Synod Final Report
or
The German Spin Machine in Overdrive

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/10/25/letters-from-the-synod-special-edition-october-25/?utm_content=bufferc431e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

He lost me at ‘the German spin machine’. If pope francis asked cardinal kasper to present his ideas to the synod openly and honestly, its poor form to call that’ spin’. This writer isn’t much of an expert.

 

[pnewton]

One other thing that I have not seen commented on in any of the reference articles is the caveat on paragraph 85

That 'teaching of the Church" reference puts the guidelines of this discernment primarily under the auspices of Cardinal Müller. The CDWDS is the primary Congregation for defining what Church teaching universally entails.

I do not think that such is very comforting to proponents of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal.

This was actually one of the issues I had with George Weigel’s article, as he expanded on this as a note, even though chapter 85 did not. Furthermore, he said this was criticized by synod fathers, though two-thirds passed the chapter over the objection. Therefore, if two-thirds of the bishop chose not to expand it, why are so many expanding it as a matter of course, within the first twenty-four hours?

Suffice it to say pastors are being asked to act in accord with the teaching of the Church. If the Holy Father decides to add to this, then I am sure we will hear of it.

 

[pnewton]

This writer isn’t much of an expert.

He actually is quite brilliant, though like all of us, is not free of bias.

 

[Brendan]

This was actually one of the issues I had with George Weigel’s article, as he expanded on this as a note, even though chapter 85 did not. Furthermore, he said this was criticized by synod fathers, though two-thirds passed the chapter over the objection. Therefore, if two-thirds of the bishop chose not to expand it, why are so many expanding it as a matter of course, within the first twenty-four hours?

Suffice it to say pastors are being asked to act in accord with the teaching of the Church. If the Holy Father decides to add to this, then I am sure we will hear of it.

My point is, it is the role of the CDWDS to clarify and teach what exactly IS the teaching of the Church on a particular matter.

And that was probably WHY the 2/3 that voted for it held that it was sufficient. The Church teaching on many of these issues was been known, and there is an Office in Rome that is specifically tasked to clarify what is unclear.

That Office is the CDWDS under Cardinal Müller.

So when pastors are called to help those in question discern a good and truthful path, the teachings of the Church that they are called to maintain will be abundantly clear so

That should encourage all of us, correct?

 

[FollowChrist34]

NCRep has put itself in an odd position. Earlier during the Synod, it published a piece that states boldly that the Synod would be considered a failure if it do not include a provision for Communion for the divorced and remarried as well as homosexual couples. Are they going to stick with that preconceived verdict of “failure” even though the final document, while not meeting the demands of NCRep, is being seen favorably with progressives?

I am with George Weigel, Pell, Mueller. I don’t see where the final document strays from orthodoxy. If your starting point is strayed from orthodoxy, then yes that is what you’ll see. There is a huge need out there to claim something has been gained. Otherwise it’s all for nought, the liberals walk away empty handed - so now there is an “opening” according to some - better than a closing. In my view, this is a problem with teaching, doctrine at the core - so it won’t go away - how could it. Whatever happened to listening to the Holy Spirit…has it not spoken here through the Synod result? Apparently not.

 

[Corki]

He lost me at ‘the German spin machine’. If pope francis asked cardinal kasper to present his ideas to the synod openly and honestly, its poor form to call that’ spin’. This writer isn’t much of an expert.

It might have been helpful for you to read all the way to the end of the article. He wasn’t calling Cardinal Kasper’s presentation to the Synod, “spin”. He specifically mentioned the twisting of the final document being undertaken by the German media.

This writer isn’t much of an expert.

He later received his master’s degree from St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto. He has received 18 honorary doctorate degrees, as well as the papal cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice and the Gloria Artis Gold Medal from the Polish Ministry of Culture.

(from his bio)

Curious as to what your definition of an expert is? The Vatican evidently thinks highly of him since that papal cross is the highest honor the Pope can give to a lay person.

 

[pnewton]

So when pastors are called to help those in question discern a good and truthful path, the teachings of the Church that they are called to maintain will be abundantly clear so

That should encourage all of us, correct?

I think among the bishops it is clear where doctrine ends, though that agreement is not absolute. For example, there is no disagreement on the insolubility of marriage. However, here, I note there are some that believe the current discipline that a remarried Catholic cannot receive communion before an annulment is obtained is a doctrine. I have even seen one bishop say this. As to Cardinal Muller’s role as head of the CDF, I think it likely that in this one case, Pope Francis will likely release the outcome of this synod personally.

 

[johnnyc176]

I am with George Weigel, Pell, Mueller. I don’t see where the final document strays from orthodoxy. If your starting point is strayed from orthodoxy, then yes that is what you’ll see. There is a huge need out there to claim something has been gained. Otherwise it’s all for nought, the liberals walk away empty handed - so now there is an “opening” according to some - better than a closing. In my view, this is a problem with teaching, doctrine at the core - so it won’t go away - how could it. Whatever happened to listening to the Holy Spirit…has it not spoken here through the Synod result? Apparently not.

Yeah the liberals have to run with what little they got. Notice not much talk of homosexuality which was the main issue in the first Synod. Pretty hard to spin this…

there is no foundation whatsoever to assimilate or establish analogies, even remotely, between homosexual unions and God’s design for marriage and the family.

 

[LongingSoul]

It might have been helpful for you to read all the way to the end of the article. He wasn’t calling Cardinal Kasper’s presentation to the Synod, “spin”. He specifically mentioned the twisting of the final document being undertaken by the German media.

(from his bio)

Curious as to what your definition of an expert is? The Vatican evidently thinks highly of him since that papal cross is the highest honor the Pope can give to a lay person.

Jesus picked fisherman and other tradesmen to spread the Word. The scribes and lawyers were regularly catagorised as tempted to legalism, pride and prejudice. Perhaps things are still a temptation today?

 

[Brendan]

I think among the bishops it is clear where doctrine ends, though that agreement is not absolute. For example, there is no disagreement on the insolubility of marriage. However, here, I note there are some that believe the current discipline that a remarried Catholic cannot receive communion before an annulment is obtained is a doctrine. I have even seen one bishop say this.

And hence the role of the CDWDS, correct? I presume that you would agree that it is not the role of each bishop to decide what is, and what is not, doctrinal for their diocese?

I have even seen one bishop say this. As to Cardinal Muller’s role as head of the CDF, I think it likely that in this one case, Pope Francis will likely release the outcome of this synod personally.

I believe that to be the case as well, but I expect it to be in very general terms, much like the Synodal document. And thus it will fall to the CDWDS to declare what the Church teaching specifically is, so that pastors may apply it with their flocks

 

[Brendan]

However, here, I note there are some that believe the current discipline that a remarried Catholic cannot receive communion before an annulment is obtained is a doctrine. I have even seen one bishop say this…

Actually, I have yet to see a bishop declare that it is disciplinary, not doctrinal.

In that remarriage after divorce is adulterous ( doctrinal)
adultery is grave sin (doctrinal)
grave sin precludes one from presenting themselves for Holy Communion ( doctrinal)

Which is exactly what Cardinal Sarah claimed

Christ was merciful but He affirmed that to breach marriage is adultery. We cannot interpret these words differently — it is a sin [to do so] and the sinner without repentance cannot receive the Body of Christ

Now how would you classify Pope St. John Paul II characterization union Marriage and Holy Communion being contradicted by divorce and remarriage?

They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist

Is that objective contradiction that +JPII speaks of due to discipline or doctrine?

 

[pnewton]

And hence the role of the CDWDS, correct?

I do not believe their role is to define as doctrine something that has not been defined as doctrine before. Traditional Catholicism has not changed on this.

Can. 381 §1. A diocesan bishop in the diocese entrusted to him has all ordinary, proper, and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral function except for cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority or to another ecclesiastical authority.

And from the General Instruction on the Roman Missal:
*
91. The celebration of the Eucharist is the action of Christ and of the Church, namely, of the holy people united and ordered under the Bishop*

So the Curia serve as servants of the Holy Father and as advisors to the bishops. I do not see where they will have a role in this. Perhaps our canon lawyer here can shed some light on this.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yeah the liberals have to run with what little they got. Notice not much talk of homosexuality which was the main issue in the first Synod. Pretty hard to spin this…

I don’t know, perhaps you are not reading the text with enough discernment and/or mercy… Bad conscience maybe?

 

[Brendan]

I do not believe their role is to define as doctrine something that has not been defined as doctrine before. Traditional Catholicism has not changed on this.

See the post that I had directly above yours. There are several doctrines listed. The clarification of those certainly falls under the CDF

And, of course you would have to agree that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, under Cardinal Sarah

As I noted above, his statement on the matter is as follows

Christ was merciful but He affirmed that to breach marriage is adultery. We cannot interpret these words differently — it is a sin [to do so] and the sinner without repentance cannot receive the Body of Christ

So what role, exactly, do you see Cardinal Sarah in relation to disciplines involving the Sacraments?

 

[pnewton]

See the post that I had directly above yours. There are several doctrines listed. The clarification of those certainly falls under the CDF

The vote of two thirds of those at the synod did not see the need to add these specifics. I will not concede them, much less the synthesis whereby communion for a specific individual is considered. The terns in those doctrines are not even defined, but then I have gone through this specific problem multiple times in the last couple of months.

I am satisfied with a wait and see approach.

 

[pnewton]

Two issues that have not been mentioned much, but I would hope that pastors will consider when dealing with people in difficult situations, is scandal, to the family, parish and community; and the welfare of children that might be involved. In fact, I think in all these discussions, most of which revolve around the needs of the remarried parents, what the children need has been pushed aside.

 

[Brendan]

The vote of two thirds of those at the synod did not see the need to add these specifics. I will not concede them, much less the synthesis whereby communion for a specific individual is considered.

Hence the role of the CDF… for those specifics.

The terns in those doctrines are not even defined,

Hence the role of the CDF…

And for any disciplines related to the doctrines that the CDF has clarified, we have Cardinal Sarah to clarify those…

 

[pnewton]

Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State or the Papal Secretariat, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, congregations, tribunals, and other institutes; the constitution and competence of all these are defined in special law.