Vatican to debate teachings on divorce, birth control, gay unions

[JimG]

Well I would think that the Ten Commandments would be seen as a little more important than some other Church teaching, wouldn’t say?

Keep in mind though, that part of what the Synod apparently hopes to accomplish is how to deal pastorally with many of the faithful who live in contradiction to the ten commandments.

When it comes to marriage, for example, the commandment says “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Jesus says that he who divorces his wife or husband and marries another makes him or her an adulterer. This is (one) of the problems that they wish to deal with. I don’t think that the Church has the option of either overruling one of the ten commandments or alternatively, of overruling the words of Jesus. That’s what makes it a significant pastoral problem.

 

[shelby_sun]

Keep in mind though, that part of what the Synod apparently hopes to accomplish is how to deal pastorally with many of the faithful who live in contradiction to the ten commandments.

When it comes to marriage, for example, the commandment says “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Jesus says that he who divorces his wife or husband and marries another makes him or her an adulterer. This is (one) of the problems that they wish to deal with. I don’t think that the Church has the option of either overruling one of the ten commandments or alternatively, of overruling the words of Jesus. That’s what makes it a significant pastoral problem.

I would never expect nor do I think the Church would or should change anything about the Ten Commandment. I brought them up because all teachings of the Church are not equal to each others. Someone said who are we to judge which ones are more important.

Again I have never said anything the Church teaches should change. What I have brought up is the point that maybe I should be in the Catholic Church anymore. I am not all that young, and I still cannot to follow the annulment teaching. It is not like I haven’t tried.

 

[JimG]

I would never expect nor do I think the Church would or should change anything about the Ten Commandment. I brought them up because all teachings of the Church are not equal to each others. Someone said who are we to judge which ones are more important.

Again I have never said anything the Church teaches should change. What I have brought up is the point that maybe I should be in the Catholic Church anymore. I am not all that young, and I still cannot to follow the annulment teaching. It is not like I haven’t tried.

A great many Catholics throughout the world find themselves in a similar position to yours. I think it is just this human problem that the synod wishes to address. I hope that it will be able to help.

 

[Tomdstone]

I presume we’re still on the topic of this thread and since Jesus said, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” - (Luke 16:18; . Mark 10:11–12)

and the 6th Commandment is “Thou shalt not commit adultery” I don’t think I understand your point about the Church.

Some rules change over time. For example, women were told to wear headcovering and not to speak in Church. This rule is flagrantly violated today. Similarly, slaves were told to be obedient to their masters, whereas that is not the rule today as slaves are morally free to disobey and leave their slavemasters without committing any sin.

 

[Tigg]

Some rules change over time. For example, women were told to wear headcovering and not to speak in Church. This rule is flagrantly violated today. Similarly, slaves were told to be obedient to their masters, whereas that is not the rule today as slaves are morally free to disobey and leave their slavemasters without committing any sin.

You cannot compare these to moral doctrine. No one is denying that church rules can change - they are man made. Divine revelation will always **be, **nor can any doctrine “develop” that would create a new meaning to what is already in the Deposit of Faith. Now the Church can regulate the sacraments, for instance, such as when first communion occurs or when one receives Confirmation, but quite honestly if the debate is over remarried receiving the sacraments I cannot imagine how this could be done. How can one receive communion while continuing to be in an adulterous relationship without committing sacrilege? I’m sure there will be many of the intelligentsia who are well versed in sacramental theology at the synod. And already we’ve heard the objections from most of the bishops as to the direction the Consistory went. Much prayer is needed.

 

[Tomdstone]

Divine revelation will always **be, **nor can any doctrine “develop” that would create a new meaning to what is already in the Deposit of Faith.

If I am not mistaken, the original creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. This is the creed that is said in the Eastern Orthodox Churches today and they reject the addition “filioque” as a development which was added later on. Also, the Bible is part of the Divine Revelation, and there are some teachings in the Bible which are no longer required to be followed.

 

[TCEL]

If I am not mistaken, the original creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. This is the creed that is said in the Eastern Orthodox Churches today and they reject the addition “filioque” as a development which was added later on. Also, the Bible is part of the Divine Revelation, and there are some teachings in the Bible which are no longer required to be followed.

These are great topics (and detailed ones) for other threads. I’m sure if you search the forums, you could find some answers to your points.

 

[rfournier103]

latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-vatican-family-20140430-story.html

Should be a very short meeting…the teachings are quite clear on all 3 topics.

I think so too.

I think the meeting is more about how to present its long standing teachings in ways that do not alienate but welcome…

I think you’re right. However, I pray that the actual message does not get lost in the delivery. True; we do NOT want to alienate; but not at the expense of TRUTH. I’m not as worried about what the Church will say; but rather how it will be recieved by the world around us.

 

[McCall1981]

I think so too.

I think you’re right. However, I pray that the actual message does not get lost in the delivery. True; we do NOT want to alienate; but not at the expense of TRUTH. I’m not as worried about what the Church will say; but rather how it will be recieved by the world around us.

This is a good point. Like with Humanae Vitae, the Church said “contraception is immoral”, and the world heard “contraception is ok”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It’s a pity that the first Christians didn’t show us a better way to evangelize, you know? They were always out there alienating people. They refused, for example, just to give a bit of money to support the Roman emperor and his gods. They refused to consider that if a pagan wanted to be a good pagan, they shouldn’t tell him about Christ, just let him ‘find his way’ and never even imply that Christ was ‘better’ than pagans or that a person was WRONG in following pagan practices, or, worst of all, that things they did were IMMORAL!

Oh dear. All these people causing trouble, even getting killed for refusing to be the least little bit ‘nice’ to others. They should be ashamed of themselves. . .

 

[McCall1981]

It’s a pity that the first Christians didn’t show us a better way to evangelize, you know? They were always out there alienating people. They refused, for example, just to give a bit of money to support the Roman emperor and his gods. They refused to consider that if a pagan wanted to be a good pagan, they shouldn’t tell him about Christ, just let him ‘find his way’ and never even imply that Christ was ‘better’ than pagans or that a person was WRONG in following pagan practices, or, worst of all, that things they did were IMMORAL!

Oh dear. All these people causing trouble, even getting killed for refusing to be the least little bit ‘nice’ to others. They should be ashamed of themselves. . .

If only they had been a little nicer and compromised the Faith a little more, then Christianity would have been able to spread quickly through the whole Medditeranean world.

Oh wait…

 

[Tomdstone]

You cannot compare these to moral doctrine. No one is denying that church rules can change - they are man made. Divine revelation will always **be, **nor can any doctrine “develop” that would create a new meaning to what is already in the Deposit of Faith. Now the Church can regulate the sacraments, for instance, such as when first communion occurs or when one receives Confirmation, but quite honestly if the debate is over remarried receiving the sacraments I cannot imagine how this could be done. How can one receive communion while continuing to be in an adulterous relationship without committing sacrilege? I’m sure there will be many of the intelligentsia who are well versed in sacramental theology at the synod. And already we’ve heard the objections from most of the bishops as to the direction the Consistory went. Much prayer is needed.

Didn’t Moses permit divorce in the Old Testament? Matt 19:8? So, was it the case that the rule on divorce changed?

 

[Tomdstone]

These are great topics (and detailed ones) for other threads. I’m sure if you search the forums, you could find some answers to your points.

The point at issue is whether or not the teaching on divorce could change. But it seems already that some other teachings have changed, so it might not be out of the question.

 

[TCEL]

The point at issue is whether or not the teaching on divorce could change. But it seems already that some other teachings have changed, so it might not be out of the question.

Yes. I might be mixing this up with another thread, but I think someone raised the point about slavery, to which it was responded that Church teaching was more nuanced than how it was presented. I’m encouraging you to look more deeply into your other topics before saying that the Church’s teaching on these matters are open to change, because my hunch is that sometimes, the teaching didn’t necessarily change. They are worthy topics deserving their own attention.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes. I might be mixing this up with another thread, but I think someone raised the point about slavery, to which it was responded that Church teaching was more nuanced than how it was presented. I’m encouraging you to look more deeply into your other topics before saying that the Church’s teaching on these matters are open to change, because my hunch is that sometimes, the teaching didn’t necessarily change. They are worthy topics deserving their own attention.

If the teaching on divorce and remarriage did not change, then how do you explain:

1. The synods of Vannes’ in 465 and of Compiegne in 756 which allowed the husband of a wife who has been unfaithful to marry again in her lifetime.(Canons 16 and 19). I don’t see where Rome objected.
2. According to Father Theodore Mackin, S.J., in the first three centuries of the Church, divorce was allowed. (See page 116: “Divorce and Remarriage,” Theodore Mackin, Paulist Press, 1984,

 

[TCEL]

If the teaching on divorce and remarriage did not change, then how do you explain:

1. The synods of Vannes’ in 465 and of Compiegne in 756 which allowed the husband of a wife who has been unfaithful to marry again in her lifetime.(Canons 16 and 19). I don’t see where Rome objected.
2. According to Father Theodore Mackin, S.J., in the first three centuries of the Church, divorce was allowed. (See page 116: “Divorce and Remarriage,” Theodore Mackin, Paulist Press, 1984,

I don’t know the answer to your question. I would try contacting one of the staff apologists here! That takes much more history buff than I possess right now, but it’s something I would be interested in hearing too.

 

[McCall1981]

Cardinal Tagle just said this about the Synod:

“So this is my hope, not for change – how can you change the biblical teachings? But maybe a real pastoral and evangelical concern for the church: How do we present the good news of the family to this generation, with its limitations, with its greatness, with its unique experiences?”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1402050.htm

 

[Prodigal_Son]

1. According to Father Theodore Mackin, S.J., in the first three centuries of the Church, divorce was allowed. (See page 116: “Divorce and Remarriage,” Theodore Mackin, Paulist Press, 1984,

A priori, this seems unlikely. Perhaps it was *sometimes *allowed, but Christian teaching at the time was very insistent that we not abandon each other, and divorcing a wife was a form of abandonment.

If the Christian Church in the first three centuries *did *accept divorce, then that is a very grave flaw in the early Christian Church. Even if divorce isn’t seriously wrong now, it was then.

 

[McCall1981]

And in even better news, Card. Baldiserri (who had recently made some worrying comments about change at the Synod) said this:

“Regarding the possibility for the synod of bishops of changing the doctrine of the Church,” Cardinal Baldisseri said, “I underscore that the First Vatican Council’s document ‘Dei Filius’ affirmed that ‘understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.’”

The cardinal then continued: “And I also remind you that John XXIII said in the inaugural speech of the Second Vatican Council [The address is called “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia”, which I quote on this blog pretty often.] that ‘authentic doctrine … should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.’”

catholicnewsagency.com/tags/cardinal-baldisseri/

 

[losh14]

These two lines:

This is not the correct thread for my comments so I’ll not reply with all those reasons. In the meantime, I’ll continue to pray and trust that God will lead me in the right direction.

illustrate considerable maturity and restraint. You’ll be blessing on these boards to keep God first and keep on topic. Most of us here find some difficulty with teaching - the point is indeed to Trust.

losh14:
I inadvertently included part of my answer in your original post. Sorry about that. I’m new to the forum and I don’t know how to edit it.

No need to apologize - I read through and understood. It’s a little like HTML (in fact, it might be HTML) in that any open-bracket expression like

needs to be closed later