Tidings of Great Joy re: Synod

[twf]

“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.

Yes, only a General Synod (Ecumenical Council) is promised infallibility, but that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t operate through other Synods as well. The college of bishops, united to the successor of St. Peter, is still collectively guided by the Spirit.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, only a General Synod (Ecumenical Council) is promised infallibility, but that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t operate through other Synods as well. The college of bishops, united to the successor of St. Peter, is still collectively guided by the Spirit.

On September 15, 1965, Pope Paul VI established the Synod of Bishops. It is not the College of Bishops. The Synod of Bishops has no direct role in the governance of the Church. Its purpose is to collaborate with the Pope by discussing topics proposed to it and to make recommendations. It does not have the authority to settle questions or issue decrees unless the Pope so grants it.

 

[Teelynn]

Have you considered the possibility that a majority of the bishops accepted the proposals you consider “controversial” because those proposals are right and correct, and that the Spirit is at work guiding the Church in that direction?

Seriously? In the direction of …allowing divorced and remarried to receive Communion? Or of accepting intimate SS unions to receive Communion? Um…I can pretty much tell you this is NOT the Holy Spirit. I think as Cardinal Pell said: ‘I’ll stand with Jesus’. Excuse me if I am misinterpreting what exactly you were saying, but it sounded ‘off.’

 

[TMC]

Seriously? In the direction of …allowing divorced and remarried to receive Communion? Or of accepting intimate SS unions to receive Communion? Um…I can pretty much tell you this is NOT the Holy Spirit. I think as Cardinal Pell said: ‘I’ll stand with Jesus’. Excuse me if I am misinterpreting what exactly you were saying, but it sounded ‘off.’

Yes, seriously. Those types of developments would be theologically much less significant than others that the Church has experienced in the past (even the recent past). I think that is the direction that the Spirit is taking us, and moving in the direction of Truth is “standing with Jesus.”

 

[billcu1]

Yes, seriously. Those types of developments would be theologically much less significant than others that the Church has experienced in the past (even the recent past). I think that is the direction that the Spirit is taking us, and moving in the direction of Truth is “standing with Jesus.”

Doesn’t the church already grant to divorced and remarried persons that have received an annulment to the Eucharist? Denying somebody that is serious. Sounds like an excommunicated that needs to be lifted ASAP. Are you meaning persons divorced and remarried without and annulment?

Bill

 

[ProVobis]

Doesn’t the church already grant to divorced and remarried persons that have received an annulment to the Eucharist? Denying somebody that is serious. Sounds like an excommunicated that needs to be lifted ASAP. Are you meaning persons divorced and remarried without and annulment?

AFAIK, the excommunications against divorced Catholics and those who marry divorced individuals were lifted in 1970. Remarriages remain the stumbling block. (Technically an annulment means you were never married in the first place. So you wouldn’t be "re"marrying.) Widows and widowers are, of course, free to marry those who are also free to marry.

 

[billcu1]

AFAIK, the excommunications against divorced Catholics and those who marry divorced individuals were lifted in 1970. Remarriages remain the stumbling block. (Technically an annulment means you were never married in the first place. So you wouldn’t be "re"marrying.)

Yes that’s true. You never really married. The way I understand it, if you have been divorced that’s not a problem. It’s in trying to remarry that can effect acceptance of the sacraments. Eucharist anyway I don’t know about absolution.

Bill

 

[ProVobis]

Yes that’s true. You never really married. The way I understand it, if you have been divorced that’s not a problem. It’s in trying to remarry that can effect acceptance of the sacraments. Eucharist anyway I don’t know about absolution.

Both sacraments.

But I wouldn’t say divorce is not a problem. If you’re culpable, you should confess it.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, seriously. Those types of developments would be theologically much less significant than others that the Church has experienced in the past (even the recent past). I think that is the direction that the Spirit is taking us, and moving in the direction of Truth is “standing with Jesus.”

The above quoted comment is, I think, correct. We seem to so easily forget Christ’s words in Matthew 7.1: “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” In a comment above, I explained my thinking about how this teaching might pertain to the issue of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion. The primacy of conscience should not be ignored. To understand this, it must be in context to the entire comment. To be sure, one could understand the comment but totally disagree with it.

I would not presume to tell others what is or is not the work of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe, however, that the majority of the Synod of Bishops should simply be ignored. These are not trivial people, and I take seriously what the Synod has to say. I also quoted in an earlier comment on this thread the then-Cardinal Ratizinger’s thoughts concerning a continuing revelation and how it concerns each generation. I take the thinking of the future Pope Benedict XVI very seriously. Simply stated, we do not yet know the whole Truth.

As for any proposal concerning SS couples receiving Holy Communion–and though I didn’t think, perhaps incorrectly, that the proposal went anywhere near as far—I have to admit I too would find it very troubling indeed. We will have to wait and see, and perhaps I need to give it more reflection. But right now I just cannot see how this could be acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church.

But I would note the following: Untold millions of Catholics have continued to receive Holy Communion while either ignoring or rejecting Humanae Vitae, the infallible Encyclical of Pope Paul VI. Unlike marriage, the practice proscribed by the Encyclical is not apparent. As a result, the Church has been virtually powerless to directly enforce the provisions of Humanae Vitae even though there is much data indicating that more than two-thirds of Catholics to whom the prohibition of Humanae Vitae would directly affect are in violation of it. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 82% of U.S. Catholics believe that artificial birth control is “morally acceptable”. And this is so despite the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI.

What are we to make of these facts? How many SS couples might even now be receiving Holy Communion? I don’t know, and I don’t know the answer to it without judging the actions of others. But I do think that what then-Cardinal Ratizinger said about a continuing revelation likely applies to the spiritual development of each individual as well. In this way, what he said in “God and the World”, as I quoted in my earlier comment, is comprehensible relative to even the Church. Yet there remain things, as noted, that would not be comprehensible for me.

 

[randomusername]

This conflicts with a lot of things pre-Synod and it doesn’t help the claim for Papal Infallibility one bit…

 

[Thomas_White]

This conflicts with a lot of things pre-Synod and it doesn’t help the claim for Papal Infallibility one bit…

Not really. The issue has an extensive history. With respect to the remarriage of Catholics, there has long been what is known as the “Internal Forum”.

“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church” (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.).

Many moral theologians and canonists are not pleased with the annulment process and encourage the use of the internal forum. Nearly 800 years ago, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that if one in good conscience believes that he or she must either do or refrain from doing a certain act, it is then a sin to not follow the command of conscience even if doing so differs from the official teachings of the Church. Ultimately, he wrote, the authority of one’s “well-formed conscience” supersedes the authority of the Church. This is the doctrine of the primacy of conscience. It remains a core principle of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There is also the ancient Catholic teaching about what was called Reception. The concept is that if the body of the faithful doesn’t accept a particular Church teaching, then the teaching is inauthentic. Some sources say that over 90% of Roman Catholics have at some point acted against the official teachings of Humanae Vitae. (This is not to say I agree the teaching of the Encyclical is inauthentic. The concept of Reception is cited simply as an historical fact.)

This is as it is. I don’t wish to upset anyone, and I consider myself a traditional Catholic. I firmly believe in the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage. If a given marriage were Sacramental, I do not believe it can be undone and found null or void by any earthly authority. I further believe, in accordance with Matthew 7.1, that any judgment about this is reserved solely to Christ and not to any marriage tribunal. Thus, any question here is best left to the individual conscience to decide. If one then errs, so be it. The fault lies there and does not transpose to others. The issue is grave, and it concerns millions of souls. I would not meddle in it. Doing so, I think, is a dangerous business–complete with potentially grave consequences.

 

[billcu1]

Both sacraments.

But I wouldn’t say divorce is not a problem. If you’re culpable, you should confess it.

If there’s no forgiveness for re-marriage civilly if one has been divorced; it would be better to fornicate than remarry. I wonder if they have thought of that. That would be a good thing to address. I wonder if they did/will.

Bill

 

[twf]

On September 15, 1965, Pope Paul VI established the Synod of Bishops. It is not the College of Bishops. The Synod of Bishops has no direct role in the governance of the Church. Its purpose is to collaborate with the Pope by discussing topics proposed to it and to make recommendations. It does not have the authority to settle questions or issue decrees unless the Pope so grants it.

I realize this…but Synods, in the general sense of the term, gatherings of bishops, have always played a vital role in the life of the Church going back to the earliest centuries. Even if we cannot attribute an exercise of “infallibility” to the modern Synod of Bishops, we can still accept that the Holy Spirit works through the bishops assembled together in Rome under the presidency of their head the Pope of Rome.

 

[billcu1]

This conflicts with a lot of things pre-Synod and it doesn’t help the claim for Papal Infallibility one bit…

Papal infallibility has always been…well questionable. As a Catholic I want to and must accept it. At the same time, ipse dixit comes to mind. It’s so cuase I said it’s so so shut up. When someone says that I think… And thinking, can be dangerous to the powers that be.

Bill

 

[Thomas_White]

I realize this…but Synods, in the general sense of the term, gatherings of bishops, have always played a vital role in the life of the Church going back to the earliest centuries. Even if we cannot attribute an exercise of “infallibility” to the modern Synod of Bishops, we can still accept that the Holy Spirit works through the bishops assembled together in Rome under the presidency of their head the Pope of Rome.

I entirely agree. And it is interesting that apparently the major of the bishops–though not the two-thirds required–favoured the two proposals (if I understand it correctly). Yes, this is very significant, particularly since the majority vote keeps the two proposals on the agenda.

 

[Thomas_White]

If there’s no forgiveness for re-marriage civilly if one has been divorced; it would be better to fornicate than remarry. I wonder if they have thought of that. That would be a good thing to address. I wonder if they did/will.

Bill

Trust me, they have thought of it. The real issue of divorced Catholics remarrying outside of the Church concerns conjugal relations. This is considered adultery. If a divorced Catholic remarries, reconciliation with the Church is possible if the person sincerely states that no future conjugal relations will occur within the marriage and then subsequently adheres to it. While conjugal relations are the core of it, to say that the Church does not in some way otherwise recognize the civil remarriage of divorced Catholics would be a rather difficult argument to maintain. Much is presumed.

I don’t see how any mortal sin could be “better” than anything. But I believe it is the case that either issue can be resolved in the Confessional. The issue for the Church is that intimate relations outside of a Catholic marriage are sinful, be it fornication or adultery. However, even within a Catholic marriage intimate relations involve procreation, and artificial birth control is prohibited. According to much statistical date, that teaching is so often violated that that for those concerned it reminds one of the log in one’s own eye as mentioned in Matthew 7.3.

 

[billcu1]

Trust me, they have thought of it. The real issue of divorced Catholics remarrying outside of the Church concerns conjugal relations. This is considered adultery. If a divorced Catholic remarries, reconciliation with the Church is possible if the person sincerely states that no future conjugal relations will occur within the marriage and then subsequently adheres to it.

I see.

While conjugal relations are the core of it, to say that the Church does not in some way otherwise recognize the civil remarriage of divorced Catholics would be a rather difficult argument to maintain. Much is presumed.

I don’t see how any mortal sin could be “better” than anything.

Well maybe I didn’t phrase that quite right. I meant it would be “better” in the way that you could get absolution for fornication/adultery if you “can’t” for remarrying civilly. But I guess that’s not the case.

But I believe it is the case that either issue can be resolved in the Confessional. The issue for the Church is that intimate relations outside of a Catholic marriage are sinful, be it fornication or adultery. However, even within a Catholic marriage intimate relations involve procreation, and artificial birth control is prohibited. According to much statistical date, that teaching is so often violated that that for those concerned it reminds one of the log in one’s own eye as mentioned in Matthew 7.3.

I didn’t know there was any unforgivable sin than the one you fail to ask forgiveness for. As I’ve always understood. And see my comments in the grey too. I didn’t know it would come out like that.

Bill

 

[Brandall]

I didn’t know there was any unforgivable sin than the one you fail to ask forgiveness for. As I’ve always understood. And see my comments in the grey too. I didn’t know it would come out like that.

Bill

It is not that these are unforgivable sins. Forgiveness requires repentance and planning to continue to fornicate, in the matter of unmarrieds, and planning to commit adultery, in the matter of remarrieds, is not repentance. Those that are divorced and fornicating would also be committing adultery. Whether they remarry or not isn’t the issue. Having sex with someone that isn’t there spouse is.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is not that these are unforgivable sins. Forgiveness requires repentance and planning to continue to fornicate, in the matter of unmarrieds, and planning to commit adultery, in the matter of remarrieds, is not repentance. Those that are divorced and fornicating would also be committing adultery. Whether they remarry or not isn’t the issue. Having sex with someone that isn’t there spouse is.

Yes, that clarification is correct. The sin would be fornication prior to a marriage in the Church and adultery following any subsequent civil divorce. It is, however, correct to say that intimate relations outside of a Catholic marriage are sinful. As I explained, even conjugal relations inside of a Catholic marriage would be sinful if it were in violation of Humanae Vitae.

 

[surritter]

It is not that these are unforgivable sins. Forgiveness requires repentance and planning to continue to fornicate, in the matter of unmarrieds, and planning to commit adultery, in the matter of remarrieds, is not repentance.

This is EXACTLY the issue, and people fail to understand it. They think that the Church is somehow punishing divorced/remarried people, and with a “suitable period of repentence” that this sin will go away. Thank you Brandall.

It’s hard to understand how a cardinal of the Church (the one from Germany who has pushed the repentance idea) doesn’t get this basic point of sacramental theology.