Tidings of Great Joy re: Synod

[kozlosap]

I don’t believe that I am. I believe that current Catholic doctrine can develop in a direction that is more welcoming and accepting of divorced people and gay people. It seems to me that the majority of the bishops agree. How far the Church will go in that acceptance remains to be seen, but I am hopeful that the Church will make big strides in that direction.

:thumbsup:Yes.

 

[billcu1]

I don’t believe that I am. I believe that current Catholic doctrine can develop in a direction that is more welcoming and accepting of divorced people and gay people. It seems to me that the majority of the bishops agree. How far the Church will go in that acceptance remains to be seen, but I am hopeful that the Church will make big strides in that direction.

When has the church never accepted divorced people? The situation gets harry when you want an annulment. So just be like King Henry VIII and start your own church.

It’s actually marriage to another person that is unauthorized that can take you from the sacraments.

Bill

 

[Thomas_White]

I think we need to be careful here. The Pope is not God. The above comes close to saying “the Pope moves in mysterious ways…but always for our good” which is something we can only really attribute to God. I’m not commenting on Pope Francis one way or another…but as a general statement, Popes can make mistakes. Popes can say the wrong thing. Popes can support the wrong group. Popes have in the past and can again fail in various ways. I say this not to “warn” people about Pope Francis…not at all…but I think it is very dangerous to attribute an impeccability to the papacy. Our faith only teaches that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from binding the Church to heresy. Our faith does not teach that the Pope will always do the right thing. Our faith should not be shattered if we find a pope’s choices disappointing. All popes are sinners like us. Ultimately the Church is sustained by Christ. The Pope and bishops are simply His servants.

“Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17).” --From Catholic Answers, as re-affirmed by Vatican II

 

[billcu1]

I think we need to be careful here. The Pope is not God. The above comes close to saying “the Pope moves in mysterious ways…but always for our good” which is something we can only really attribute to God. I’m not commenting on Pope Francis one way or another…but as a general statement, Popes can make mistakes. Popes can say the wrong thing. Popes can support the wrong group. Popes have in the past and can again fail in various ways. I say this not to “warn” people about Pope Francis…not at all…but I think it is very dangerous to attribute an impeccability to the papacy. Our faith only teaches that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from binding the Church to heresy. Our faith does not teach that the Pope will always do the right thing. Our faith should not be shattered if we find a pope’s choices disappointing. All popes are sinners like us. Ultimately the Church is sustained by Christ. The Pope and bishops are simply His servants.

Well said.
I’m pretty excited to see what they come up with next year.

 

[Mark121359]

Do you realize that you are equating the development of a teaching (which of course has happened) with the change of a teaching (which is impossible)?

This is exactly correct…it would be a 180! How in the world do you call that development? More like capitulating!

Peace, Mark

 

[billcu1]

“Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17).” --From Catholic Answers, as re-affirmed by Vatican II

Is this mentioned anywhere in the CCC? If so I’d like to read it.

Bill

 

[randomusername]

While I agree that the Church will go on, I can’t help but be troubled by the fact that the most controversial proposals received support from the majority of bishops gathered for this Synod on the Family. Although, thank God, it failed to receive the required two-thirds majority that would have signaled formal approval. Still, if that doesn’t spell out a Church divided…I don’t know what does! I believe it was at La Salette Our Lady supposedly said; *“Satan will succeed in infiltrating into the highest positions in the Church. A time of very severe trial is also coming for the Church. Cardinals will oppose Cardinals and Bishops will oppose Bishops. Satan will enter into their very midst. In Rome also, there will occur great changes.” * After this synod…I can’t help but wonder.

Peace, Mark

This and Vatican 2. Huge change in the Church and Rome. I don’t doubt that the intentions of the Cardinals and Pope are still good, but I think that some of them are being misled. And although the changes will be for the good, people will twist them and make complete new meanings and turn what should have been good changes into bad changes.

EDIT: BTW does this not conflict with Papal Infallibility? If it does it’s worrisome, because if one doctrine is wrong then suddenly the rest has little backing.

 

[Thomas_White]

is this mentioned anywhere in the ccc? If so i’d like to read it.

Bill

#890-891. It is difficult. I am inclined to agree with the comment immediately above, but the CCC says what it says. I agree the Synod was confusing, but I don’t believe the proposed changes will be approved. In this way, infallibility is perhaps reinforced.

 

[billcu1]

#890-891

Ok then this applies to this Synod? What about early Synods? Like the Jerusalem Synod? That was I believe before ecumenical councils. But this applies to just “faith and morals”. So what about humana vitae? That was the pontiff acting alone and not in the magisterium.



Bill

 

[Thomas_White]

Ok then this applies to this Synod? What about early Synods? Like the Jerusalem Synod? That was I believe before ecumenical councils. But this applies to just “faith and morals”. So what about humana vitae? That was the pontiff acting alone and not in the magisterium.



Bill

It is simply what #891 of the CCC teaches. I agree it is difficult. The section states that the pope is infallible in matters of “faith and morals”. He can certainly act alone. It is not whether I agree or disagree but only what #891 of the CCC has to say.

 

[twf]

“Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17).” --From Catholic Answers, as re-affirmed by Vatican II

This doesn’t contradict what I said. Papal infallibility is invoked extremely rarely. The pope is not impeccable, nor is he ordinarily infallible. Outside of the very rare occasions of promulgating dogmas (which historically has almost always been done by ecumenical councils and not by the Pope alone), popes can and have and will make mistakes. If we as Catholics hold each and every Pope up as an impeccable living saint, we will be sorely disappointed.

 

[billcu1]

It is simply what #891 of the CCC teaches. I agree it is difficult. The section states that the pope is infallible in matters of “faith and morals”. He can certainly act alone. It is not whether I agree or disagree but only what #891 of the CCC has to say.

I’m not disagreeing it’s just that that section was kind of hard to grasp right off.

Bill

 

[graciew]

I would like to share this with you:
the beauty of my Church for me ,is that I do not have to worry,she just keeps me busy.
No wonder they call it Mother

 

[TMC]

Do you realize that you are equating the development of a teaching (which of course has happened) with the change of a teaching (which is impossible)?

There is a big difference, which is why Brandall and Mark have challenged your earlier posts.

This is exactly correct…it would be a 180! How in the world do you call that development? More like capitulating!

Peace, Mark

There have been a number of developments in doctrine that probably looked like a 180 to some when they happened. The issue, in my view, is generally in identifying what the core teaching is that cannot change, and what is merely current interpretation or practice.

For example, the Church used to teach that charging interest was always wrong. But the Church now recognizes that the core to that teaching is that one should always be fair in business dealings, especially fair to the poor. And the Church now teaches that a fair interest rate meets that standard. But that teaching would probably seem like a 180 to the millions of Catholics that lived during the more than a 1,000 year ban on interest.

The same goes for ecumenism, EENS, and so forth.

It seems to me that the question before the Church now is what is the core teaching that is important here? Is the core that the remarried must be denied the sacraments? I don’t think so, but maybe some do. Is the core that marriage is indissoluble? Perhaps, but changing the rule on providing sacraments to the remarried doesn’t require changing that rule, in my view. Maybe the Church will come to realize that the core to that teaching is something else that we have not been given to see at this point.

Regardless, change is possible (past history certainly proves that). Change seems likely (the events of the Synod suggest that). What the change will be is hard to say. But as the Pope tells us, we need to be willing to be surprised by God.

 

[Thomas_White]

In the Prologue of “God and the World” (page 38), then-Cardinal Ratzinger is quoted as follows:

”…there is a development of faith. Each generation, from the point of view of its own circumstances, is able to discover new dimensions of faith that even the Church did not know before. The Lord predicts this in the Gospel of John: ‘The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, so that you will come to know those things which would be too much for you now.’ That means there is always a surplus, something anticipatory in revelation—not only with respect to what any individual may hitherto have understood, but also with respect to what the Church knows.”

I was astonished when I first read this, but I then realized it did not mean there was no absolute truth but only that it had not yet been fully revealed to us or even to the Church. While I believe in the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage, I can at least understand the question about remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion in our time. In the Gospels, it is said that the Father gave to the Son the sole right to judge. Also in the Gospels is Christ’s teaching about marriage. But then there is in Matthew 7.1 this admonishment: “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” (Douay-Rheims). What is it that Marriage Tribunals do if it is not to judge?

A core teaching of the Catholic Church has long been the primacy of conscience. A person must always follow the dictates of his or her conscience. Without question, the rules for obtaining a marriage annulment have evolved and have been greatly expanded.

There can be no certainty in the subjective judgments of the Tribunals, for man cannot fully understand the dynamics of the marriages of others. In fact, this is impossible. Therefore, judgment was given by the Father exclusively to the Son. Consequently, I am inclined to believe that the question of the sanctity of a particular marriage is best left to the conscience of the person involved–who did experience the events in question–rather than to others who did not. It is in this way that I at least can understand the proposal about remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion. The above quote by the future Pope Benedict XVI perhaps provides a proper context.

Tom

 

[Lormar]

I would like to share this with you:
the beauty of my Church for me ,is that I do not have to worry,she just keeps me busy.
No wonder they call it Mother

Gracie, you are wonderful!

 

[Thomas_White]

This doesn’t contradict what I said. Papal infallibility is invoked extremely rarely. The pope is not impeccable, nor is he ordinarily infallible. Outside of the very rare occasions of promulgating dogmas (which historically has almost always been done by ecumenical councils and not by the Pope alone), popes can and have and will make mistakes. If we as Catholics hold each and every Pope up as an impeccable living saint, we will be sorely disappointed.

The Catechism of the Catholic Churches states the following:

“890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

“891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

This is the teaching of the Church. It is unnecessary for the Pope to formally proclaim infallibility when proclaiming a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. Infallibility is already present with the proclamation.

 

[Genesis315]

For example, the Church used to teach that charging interest was always wrong. But the Church now recognizes that the core to that teaching is that one should always be fair in business dealings, especially fair to the poor. And the Church now teaches that a fair interest rate meets that standard. But that teaching would probably seem like a 180 to the millions of Catholics that lived during the more than a 1,000 year ban on interest.

I don’t think this is a fair assessment of development in this regard. From what I understand, the core to that teaching is that it is unjust to charge something for nothing or twice for the same thing, without providing any more value. It is the poor that historically suffered as a result of this, so it is often condemned in relation to this, but ultimately it is wrong whether charged to the poor or the rich.

The Fifth Lateran Council provided the definition of usury–it is consonant with circumstances where it is wrong to charge any interest or where it is right to charge sum.
Fifth Lateran Council:

For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.

Here’s a good article on this:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646

And a good summary from the article:

"t is usury to take any interest at all upon the loan of a piece of property, which (a) is of no use except to be used up, spent, consumed; (b) is not wanted for the lender’s own consumption within the period of the load; (c) is lent upon security that obviates risk; (d) is so lent that the lender forgoes no occasion of lawful gain by lending it"

 

[TMC]

I don’t think this is a fair assessment of development in this regard. From what I understand, the core to that teaching is that it is unjust to charge something for nothing or twice for the same thing, without providing any more value. It is the poor that historically suffered as a result of this, so it is often condemned in relation to this, but ultimately it is wrong whether charged to the poor or the rich.

The Fifth Lateran Council provided the definition of usury–it is consonant with circumstances where it is wrong to charge any interest or where it is right to charge sum.

Here’s a good article on this:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646

And a good summary from the article:

However you want to spin it, surely you agree the Church once banned lending at interest, and now embraces doing so? The doctrine developed in a way that was consistent with the underlying teaching, but which looked very different in practice. Similar developments have been made in other important Church doctrines (including doctrines as important as EENS). Developments can also be made in current Church doctrine on the issues discussed by the Synod.

 

[Thomas_White]

“The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council.” #891 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Synod of Bishops does not have the infallibility of the Magisterium to proclaim “by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals”. It is an advisory body for the Pope.