Synod on the Family confusion

[namax91]

This seemed to be the most appropriate forum for this question. For some reason I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around what happened at the Synod on the Family, particularly relating to the talk that they were considering changing doctrine. (Please don’t point me to any articles because even Jimmy Akins’ articles on the subject are just causing me more confusion.) I think I understand that that one controversial document released was nothing more than minutes from a particular meeting and it didn’t mean that they were changing doctrine. Also, the translation into English was done very poorly. My question is, why was any of this discussed during the Synod in the first place? Obviously the bishops know that infallible doctrine can’t be changed. If I could just have a quick rundown as to what happened at the Synod, good or bad, that would be great. Part of the reason I want to know so late after the fact is that there is someone on these forums who posted today that they are finding their faith greatly shaken partly because they are taking the recent Synod as the Church looking to change doctrine. I want to help alleviate their worries, but I am about as confused as them. I trust that the Church cannot change doctrine, but I also know that there has been a lot of misinformation relating to the Synod. I just have no idea what actually happened. Thank you! God bless.

 

[cena]

This seemed to be the most appropriate forum for this question. For some reason I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around what happened at the Synod on the Family, particularly relating to the talk that they were considering changing doctrine. (Please don’t point me to any articles because even Jimmy Akins’ articles on the subject are just causing me more confusion.) I think I understand that that one controversial document released was nothing more than minutes from a particular meeting and it didn’t mean that they were changing doctrine. Also, the translation into English was done very poorly. My question is, why was any of this discussed during the Synod in the first place? Obviously the bishops know that infallible doctrine can’t be changed. If I could just have a quick rundown as to what happened at the Synod, good or bad, that would be great. Part of the reason I want to know so late after the fact is that there is someone on these forums who posted today that they are finding their faith greatly shaken partly because they are taking the recent Synod as the Church looking to change doctrine. I want to help alleviate their worries, but I am about as confused as them. I trust that the Church cannot change doctrine, but I also know that there has been a lot of misinformation relating to the Synod. I just have no idea what actually happened. Thank you! God bless.

I was listening to Catholic radio (EWTN I think) and a bishop said that document was a rough draft that they didn’t take a second look at .

 

[Gorgias]

There are really two issues here; perhaps that’s what’s causing your confusion.

First, the ‘minutes’ that were released weren’t an official outcome of the synod preparations. So, nothing that they said would have ‘changed doctrine.’ That being said, there wasn’t anything in them that actually suggested a change in doctrine.

Second, you’re right – there’s no such thing as changing the stated doctrine of the Church. So, those who speculated that the Church was preparing to change doctrine simply don’t know what they’re talking about. In other words, whatever the outcome of the synod will be, there will be no ‘change in doctrine.’

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Thanks, Gorgias and Cena, for clearing up what happened at the Synod. I had some of the same concerns as the OP.

 

[phil19034]

The synod was not discussing changes to Doctrine, nor will it.

The purpose is pastoral. An attempt to figure out what the Church can do to help families and only part of it discussed how to handle irregular marriages, etc.

In regards to some being in favor of allowing the divorced to received communion, it’s not about changing doctrine. Its a question regarding what is worse: sacrilege vs. apostasy?

Is coming to Mass and receiving unworthily worse than leaving the Church all together? Or the other way around? And if sacrilege is better than apostasy, how do you prevent or manage scandal?

They are very touchy issues, and one that I feel cannot be properly tackled without major Catechesis for practicing Catholics, so they can avoid scandal and properly teach.

I don’t know if I’m confusing the issue… I’m not trying to. But in summary, the purpose for the Synod is to figure out a way to bring more people back to the Church so they can be evangelized and then Catechized.

God Bless.

 

[Sirach2]

Part of the reason I want to know so late after the fact is that there is someone on these forums who posted today that they are finding their faith greatly shaken partly because they are taking the recent Synod as the Church looking to change doctrine. I want to help alleviate their worries, but I am about as confused as them. I trust that the Church cannot change doctrine, but I also know that there has been a lot of misinformation relating to the Synod. I just have no idea what actually happened. Thank you! God bless.

There is much alarm [and harm] being spread indiscriminately by certain members here whose faith is built on sand. While doctrine itself will not change, the Church may bring forth pastoral decisions after the deliberations have concluded.

For instance, last evening on EWTN, Fr. Apostoli on Sunday Night Prime answered a question from a divorced person who had not been to Church in many years. The act of obtaining a divorce previously, incurred an automatic excommunication. That meant, no longer being part of the Church, and no longer able to receive communion. Pope Paul VI removed that restriction, and divorcees are no longer excommunicated. They may remain in the Church and receive the sacraments.

Some might say this changed doctrine, but no … it just removed a heavy discipline in that was formerly applied in connection with the doctrine. A similar pastoral discipline may come forth from Pope Francis with regard to some of the issues now under consideration within the Synod deliberations. Until these conclude next October, it is futile to second-guess any possible outcome and alarm the faithful needlessly beforehand.

 

[Sirach2]

There is much alarm [and harm] being spread indiscriminately by certain members here whose faith is built on sand. While doctrine itself will not change, the Church may bring forth pastoral decisions after the deliberations have concluded.

Following up on my previous post, I noted in this Vatican article, that there were negative sentiments regarding the proclamation of the Assumption, yet Pope Pius XII overruled them and issued the solemn proclamation. The same overruling may be done by Pope Francis, despite the public outcry regarding some of the Synod issues. The last paragraph (blue) is the only true possibility for us as Catholics.
Before publishing the Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII asked theology faculties around the world for an opinion. "Our teachers’ answer was emphatically negative" Ratzinger wrote. "What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but also of the historicist method in theology. ‘Tradition’ was identified with what could be proved on the basis of* texts*.
“This argument is compelling if you understand ‘tradition’ strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts,” Ratzinger remarked. “This was the position that our teachers represented. But if you conceive of ‘tradition’ as the living process of truth whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent ‘remembering’ (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet was already handed down in the original Word.”

Ratzinger wrote that in 1949, one year before the proclamation of the dogma was issued, Professor Gottlieb Söhngen expressed firm disagreement. Another professor, Eduard Schlink, who taught Systematic Theology at Heidelberg, asked him: “What will you do if the dogma is proclaimed anyway? Wouldn’t you have to turn your back on the Catholic Church?” Söhngen’s response was this: “If the dogma is proclaimed, I will bear in mind that the Church is wiser than I am and that I have more faith in the Church than in my erudition.”" I think that this small scene says everything about the spirit in which theology was done [in those days]," Ratzinger said, “both critically and with faith.”

 

[TradCatholic34]

It is good to remember too that a historical perspective is always healthy. Many synods are today barely remembered. The 1985 synod, for example, was “only” thirty years ago, and yet most Catholics couldn’t tell you what happened at it, and with good reason.

The same is also true, one might note, of many councils.

 

[Vico]

It is good to remember too that a historical perspective is always healthy. Many synods are today barely remembered. The 1985 synod, for example, was “only” thirty years ago, and yet most Catholics couldn’t tell you what happened at it, and with good reason.

The same is also true, one might note, of many councils.

That synod lead to the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach2:

For instance, last evening on EWTN, Fr. Apostoli on Sunday Night Prime answered a question from a divorced person who had not been to Church in many years. The act of obtaining a divorce previously, incurred an automatic excommunication. That meant, no longer being part of the Church, and no longer able to receive communion. Pope Paul VI removed that restriction, and divorcees are no longer excommunicated. They may remain in the Church and receive the sacraments.

Following up on this post, since the network had delayed uploading Fr. Apostoli’s program, I was unable to share his exact words. The program is now on youtube, and you can see his exact comment here: youtube.com/watch?v=T3214sO3W1w&t=47m5s

It is truly a blessing that the Church lifted the excommunication of divorced Catholics, and considered the mitigating circumstances, understanding that it is a better good for the injured spouse to take that position.

 

[Vico]

… The act of obtaining a divorce previously, incurred an automatic excommunication. That meant, no longer being part of the Church, and no longer able to receive communion. Pope Paul VI removed that restriction, and divorcees are no longer excommunicated. They may remain in the Church and receive the sacraments. …

For divorce, it was only in force in the USA from 1843 to 1844 when it was rescinded for divorce. But for divorced that remarried, it remained in force in the USA between the years of 1884 and 1977. (From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.)

 

[Sirach2]

For divorce, it was only in force in the USA from 1843 to 1844 when it was rescinded for divorce. But for divorced that remarried, it remained in force in the USA between the years of 1884 and 1977. (From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.)

Would you kindly provide the exact ruling, since my search of the “Third” Council shows no reference to this. Nor is there anything on the First or Second Council.

Are you saying Father is *wrong? *Again, I ask for the exact wording that corroborates your statement, that excommunication merely referred to divorced who “remarried.”

 

[Vico]

Would you kindly provide the exact ruling, since my search of the “Third” Council shows no reference to this. Nor is there anything on the First or Second Council.

Are you saying Father is *wrong? *Again, I ask for the exact wording that corroborates your statement, that excommunication merely referred to divorced who “remarried.”

Excommunications of the Third Council

Title iv established two excommunications ‘latae sententiae’ that were applicable only to Catholics within the United States.[1] The first (n. 124) applied to American Catholics who, after obtaining a civil divorce, attempted remarriage. This excommunication was lifted (retroactively) in 1977 by Pope Paul VI at the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

[1*] Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, by T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis

The second excommunication (n. 127) applied to American Catholics who married (or attempted marriage) before a non-Catholic minister. This excommunication was later complemented by canon 2319 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which in turn was modified in 1953 to subsume the U.S.-only excommunication. The excommunication of canon 2319 was subsequently lifted (retroactively) by Pope Paul VI in the 1970 Motu proprio Matrimonia Mixta.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_Councils_of_Baltimore
For the second was remarriage after divorce (marry before a sectarian minister) which was prohibited:Title iv, Of the Sacraments.-(i) Of the baptism of converts. The ritual prescribed for their reception into the Church is to be observed. (ii) Of matrimony. Catholics who marry before a sectarian minister are excommunicated. Mixed marriages are not to be contracted unless promises are given that the Catholic party is in no danger of perversion, and will strive to convert the non-Catholic party. Also that all the children born of the union are to be brought up Catholics. No dispensation from these promises can be given.

Fanning, W. (1907). Plenary Councils of Baltimore. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/02235a.htm

Pope Paul VI lifted the penalties in *Matrimonia Mixta, 1977:15. The penalties decreed by canon 2319 of the Code of Canon Law are all abrogated. For those who have already incurred them the effects of those penalties cease, without prejudice to the obligations mentioned in number 4 of these norms.

 * Canon 2319, 1:
  "Catholics are under an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the  Ordinary: (1) who contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister contrary to  canon 1063, 51, 1; (2) who contract marriage with an explicit or implicit  agreement that all children or any child be educated outside the Catholic  Church; (3) who knowingly presume to present their children to non-Catholic  ministers to be baptized; (4) who, being parents or taking their place,  knowingly present their children to be educated or trained in a non-Catholic  religion.

*vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19700331_matrimonia-mixta_en.html

 

[Sirach2]

It was remarriage after divorce was prohibited:
Title iv, Of the Sacraments.-(i) Of the baptism of converts. The ritual prescribed for their reception into the Church is to be observed. (ii) Of matrimony. Catholics who marry before a sectarian minister are excommunicated. Mixed marriages are not to be contracted unless promises are given that the Catholic party is in no danger of perversion, and will strive to convert the non-Catholic party. Also that all the children born of the union are to be brought up Catholics. No dispensation from these promises can be given.

Fanning, W. (1907). Plenary Councils of Baltimore. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/02235a.htm

This does not refer to Catholics who obtained a divorce, as I had stated, but merely excommunicated Catholics who married without the proper form, i.e., before a sectarian minister.

As far as I understand, Father is correct… Paul VI, in rescinding the* Plenary Council*, was not addressing the issue of persons who obtained a divorce. I would trust Father’s words as authoritative until he is proven inaccurate. You have not disproved him, but you addressed a completely different issue altogether.

Note the words do not mention a remarriage, but the fact of contracting a marriage outside the Church…

 

[Sirach2]

Pope Paul VI lifted the penalties in Matrimonia Mixta, 1977:

This Motu Proprio only lifted the penalties for mixed marriages. No mention was made about excommunication of divorced persons. Apparently, there is another source document from Paul VI.

Father spoke about divorced people being excommunicated long before Pope Paul VI, and I would not trust Wikipedia as a reliable source, with regard to their interpretation of Title IV. If you noted, there is an “edit” option, suggesting that they are not wholly certain of their interpretation.

In reading the actual Plenary document, I find no mention of excommunicating divorced persons who “remarried.” This was only brought up by Wikipedia, not in the Plenary document itself. Father Apostoli needs to be very certain of his statements when he airs them publicly in answer to someone who addressed this question. He most probably researched this prior to answering the question on the network. I appreciate your efforts to correct him, but your source is still unproven.

 

[Vico]

This Motu Proprio only lifted the penalties for mixed marriages. No mention was made about excommunication of divorced persons. Apparently, there is another source document from Paul VI.

Father spoke about divorced people being excommunicated long before Pope Paul VI, and I would not trust Wikipedia as a reliable source, with regard to their interpretation of Title IV. If you noted, there is an “edit” option, suggesting that they are not wholly certain of their interpretation.

In reading the actual Plenary document, I find no mention of excommunicating divorced persons who “remarried.” This was only brought up by Wikipedia, not in the Plenary document itself. Father Apostoli needs to be very certain of his statements when he airs them publicly in answer to someone who addressed this question. He most probably researched this prior to answering the question on the network. I appreciate your efforts to correct him, but your source is still unproven.

Remarriage after a civil divorce while the spouse remains alive and with no annulment would be the case covered by the canon law of 1917 and by the 1884 Third Plenary Baltimore Council, since there would exist an impediment of prior bond and no valid Catholic marriage could be had.

The source given in Wikipedia is: Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, by T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis (1946). This is the same reference given in Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments edited by Pierre Hegy, Joseph Martos.

I have not found the source for Catholic Doors quote:The American Church did place excommunication upon divorced people during the U.S. Bishops’ Council of Baltimore in 1843. Believing this penalty was too severe, the Bishops withdrew the censure in 1884, though the penalty of excommunication for any Catholic who divorced and remarried outside the Church still remained.
nacsdc.org/aware/fact_2.html

 

[Sirach2]

Remarriage after a civil divorce while the spouse remains alive and with no annulment would be the case covered by the canon law of 1917 and by the 1884 Third Plenary Baltimore Council, since there would exist an impediment of prior bond and no valid Catholic marriage could be had.

The source given in Wikipedia is: Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, by T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis (1957). This is the same reference given in Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments edited by Pierre Hegy, Joseph Martos.

I guess we will go another round robbin, yes?
We must look at the actual document itself, which bears absolutely no reference to a remarriage whatsoever. These words in the Summary statement from Wikipedia “This excommunication was later complemented by canon 2319 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law” indicate further development, but this was NOT contained in the actual Plenary Document, as one can easily read. This particular statement clearly referred to The **second **excommunication, that is, the marriage being performed by a non-Catholic minister.

My money is on Father Apostoli, and I am no longer going to discuss this with you, since you are determined to make the document say what you believe.

 

[Vico]

I guess we will go another round robbin, yes?
We must look at the actual document itself, which bears absolutely no reference to a remarriage whatsoever. These words in the Summary statement from Wikipedia “This excommunication was later complemented by canon 2319 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law” indicate further development, but this was NOT contained in the actual Plenary Document, as one can easily read. This particular statement clearly referred to The **second **excommunication, that is, the marriage being performed by a non-Catholic minister.

My money is on Father Apostoli, and I am no longer going to discuss this with you, since you are determined to make the document say what you believe.

I agree that there is no use of the word remarriage, rather: “Catholics who marry before a sectarian minister are excommunicated”. It will apply to those Catholics that remarry after divorce.

These are the two excommunications in question mentioned form the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore:

• n. 124 - Attempt to contract marriage after a civil divorce brings excommunication reserved to the Ordinary
• n. 127 - Marriage contracted before a non-Catholic minister brings excommunication reserved to the Ordinary

This is what I posted, which I believe has two errors:“For divorce, it was only in force in the USA from 1843 to 1844 when it was rescinded for divorce. But for divorced that remarried, it remained in force in the USA between the years of 1884 and 1977. (From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.)”
My post has a typo, the 1844 was supposed to be 1884, from the The Third Plenary Council as I indicated that in that post. The second is that I can find no excommunication for divorce *alone *in any documents of the Church. I did find a statement on EWTN that from 1843 there was penalty for divorce and remarriage.

There is no excommunication for divorce in the 38 decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. The excommunication for divorce and remarriage began with the Fifth Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1843. The provincial councils were in 1829, 1833, 1837, 1840, 1843, 1846, and 1849.

Pastoral Letter of the Fifth Provincial Council of Baltimore (n. 8) has:“It is manifestly clear that they are guilty of the gravest crime, who seek for a marriage to be dissolved by a civil magistrate, or, what is worse, after a civil divorce is obtained, try to enter into a new marriage, while the legitimate bond, which still remains before God and the Church, becomes of less account. To cure these ills, we establish the penalty of excommunication, reserved to the Ordinary, incurred* ipso facto *by those who, after they have obtained a civil divorce, dare to attempt marriage”

 

[Sirach2]

As I stated yesterday, I will no longer discuss this with you.

It is a pretty sad day when a well-known and beloved religious is publicly and audaciously corrected, while he is not able to defend himself here. I ask that you contact him directly at Sundaynightprime@EWTN.com and ask him to explain to your satisfaction, the background of his teaching.

 

[Sirach2]

As a follow-up in defense of Fr. Apostoli, I found a couple sites that affirm the excommunication of Catholics who obtained a civil divorce. No need to look further, since it was a belief held and taught by others, as well. .

1) Is a divorced Catholic excommunicated?

A) No, civil divorce no longer results in excommunication. The divorced Catholic is a full member of the Church and can participate in all Sacraments.http://www.dmdiocese.org/divorced-and-catholic-faqs.cfm

Although at one time divorced Catholics were excommunicated, today the Church recognizes that, subjectively, in some cases a married couple may have no reasonable alternative to separation and divorce. According to the Church’s Code of Canon Law, a couple may be forced to separate and seek a divorce when circumstances are such that they cause “serious danger of spirit or body to the spouse or the children, or otherwise render common life too hard” (cf. #1153.1).
http://www.holyangelssandusky.org/ministry-Separated_and_Divorced.asp

Obviously, Father knew facts that were unavailable to Vico who merely had “search engine” information that he used to discredit this religious’ teaching.