E
estesbob
Guest
So you are hopeful that the Church is going to overturn 2,000 years of teaching? It is not the Popes or anyone else’s job to change doctrine-he couldn’t even if he wanted to .
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I am hopeful that wherever the Holy Spirit is leading us, we will have the humility and trust to follow and I am confident that whatever the Church decides, will be what God wants.
E
estesbob
Guest
Hope could the Spirit lead us in a different direction than it has in the last 2,000 years.?
S
Sirach2
Guest
Absolutely! I cannot understand why you are badgering LongingSoul … ?
There have been a few reversals of teachings, as the existing times have warranted. Each time, the Spirit has led the Church in a direction that was unknown formerly. In particular, E.E.N.S. This must be understood presently as the Church herself now teaches it, and not as popes in the 12th century wrote regarding it.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
We don’t ‘glibly assert’ anything let alone ‘we don’t care which it is’. I personally care very much to have the sacramental meaning of marriage more clearly understood for the sake of my newly adult children and their whole generation.
Why did Jesus raise marriage to a sacrament in the first place? Because marriage not only has social meaning for the species, it has meaning for our relationship with God. If people go into marriage not appreciating that important divine function of their union, they are not disposed to access the grace of the sacrament and be edified by their marriage. Did Christ want this catagory of people to be written off as colateral damage in defense of the law? These are questions that bother people especially clergy who are daily ministering to their flock. Remember that this issue is being raised by the clergy themselves. This is not noisy radical parishioners forming a revolt. It is a situation that is already accepted by the type of people that it pertains to. The law of the Church is a living thing. It is letter and spirit and as such we can have enough humility to be open the the surprises of God with His own Church.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Exactly right. There is absolutely nothing unnatural or unholy about an eternal Truth being reflected to one generation one way and to another another way. In fact it is inevitable in most areas of life. The Church is specifically ordained to help us interpret Gods will in our own time. If it could all just be stored in another Great Book like the bible, why would we even need the Church?
T
twf
Guest
I apologize for my tone.It wasn’t what you said, but the way that you said it. I envisioned your tone of voice and body language within your words. Let’s try again.
T
twf
Guest
The reality is some of the Fathers of the Church did support pastoral disciplines in regards to remarriage that was seemingly at odds with doctrine. This is not necessarily a new debate… but I personally cannot reconcile it in my mind and tend to think Cardinal Burke is right on this particular issue. I do hope that the annulment process can be streamlined…that is another topic on the table that was discussed at the last Synod and something the Holy Father has personally endorsed.
That all being said, I, among others, are struggling with the fact that a great and very recent pope, one whom most of us still remember very clearly, Pope St. John Paul, clearly ruled this option out. The Polish bishops have come out very clearly in saying they feel the Church has betrayed the memory of St. JPII by arguing about this issue so soon after he left us. I wouldn’t go that far…but it is how many feel. Certainly 12th century Popes had a different understanding of EENS than more modern popes, but fundamentally the doctrine has remained intact- just our understanding of who is “in” the Church has evolved.
Suudy
Active member
This entire discussion reminds me of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, which lead to Humanae Vitae. There’s a great story about Fr John Ford’s efforts to defend traditional Church teaching on contraception. Indeed, if you read the accounts of the Commission and how it was managed by its leadership, it sound very similar to the shenanigans at last year’s synod, such as the leaking of the synod documents mirrors the leaking of commission documents.
Somehow I suspect when the Pope issues an encyclical that affirms traditional Church teaching, we’ll see the same amount of deference, respect, and acknowledgement of Pope Paul VI’s promulgation of Humanae Vitae.
Somehow I suspect when the Pope issues an encyclical that affirms traditional Church teaching, we’ll see the same amount of deference, respect, and acknowledgement of Pope Paul VI’s promulgation of Humanae Vitae.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Good points, twf. I can understand how they must be feeling. You and I understand the 3 things necessary to make a sin mortal, particularly the “lack of knowledge.”
I have thought long and hard about this myself … let’s say a couple are the type that BXVI was concerned about – baptized ‘pagans’ who use the Church to have a ‘nice’ wedding, with no real concept of faith in the sacrament. The marriage fails and the abandoned spouse eventually remarries, say 20-25 years later – but not before applying for an annulment. Due to the time lapse, lack of witnesses, etc., the tribunal has little to go on other than the petitioner’s word that he/she did not have a proper sense of marriage at the time of the pretty ceremony, which was more for show and parental approval than real faith. 'Good’ Catholics get married in church, yes?
This person’s conscience was formed after much prayer and certainty before God, they believe that their first marriage was invalid, though no annulment was granted; is this person to go through the rest of their life without the sacraments? Is God THAT unmerciful? St. Paul tells us “remain in the state you were called” … meaning, when God called you to Himself as a slave, remain a slave. [Cor. 7:21-24] If 25 years later, God’s love is calling this repentant person to Himself, but no recourse may be had to an annulment, what then?
In certain case by case scenarios such as this, I truly believe it would not be wrong for them to receive the sacrament, since the 3 conditions for mortal sin are not present. IOW, it is NOT adultery. Remember, Kasper said repeatedly that this is not blanket approval, but a case by case matter to be decided between the confessor and the penitent. I would hope that some type of guidance comes from the Synod that would help these pastors. It seems utterly deplorable to me that Burke would thwart this process due to fears of what may come forth. It desperately needs to proceed as Francis directed. May God move us to earnestly pray for God’s holy will to be done as He guides the participants.
Please know that I am so devoted to the Church that whatever is decided is ok with me, and I will rejoice in the final decision.
B
Brendan
Guest
On any change to the praxis, yes, those have no bearing on the table at all.
But Cardinal Burke has never objected to any discussion about how best to convey the teachings of the Church.
He has only objected to any attempts to change the teachings of the Church, and in this he is in full agreement with Pope Francis.
And full agreement is hardly a type of ‘resistance’
T
twf
Guest
The scenario you describe, at least in the sense that Benedict argued, could lead to a wider range of grounds for annulments…annulments not only for lack of form or intent, but lack of faith. That isn’t quite the same as what Cardinal Kasper and others are calling for…communion for those in a marriage that is decidedly invalid (cases where an annulment simply isn’t possible). I think even Cardinal Burke is open to reevaluating the grounds for annulments? It is a very tricky issue.Good points, twf. I can understand how they must be feeling. You and I understand the 3 things necessary to make a sin mortal, particularly the “lack of knowledge.”
I have thought long and hard about this myself … let’s say a couple are the type that BXVI was concerned about – baptized ‘pagans’ who use the Church to have a ‘nice’ wedding, with no real concept of faith in the sacrament. The marriage fails and the abandoned spouse eventually remarries, say 20-25 years later – but not before applying for an annulment. Due to the time lapse, lack of witnesses, etc., the tribunal has little to go on other than the petitioner’s word that he/she did not have a proper sense of marriage at the time of the pretty ceremony, which was more for show and parental approval than real faith. 'Good’ Catholics get married in church, yes?
This person’s conscience was formed after much prayer and certainty before God, they believe that their first marriage was invalid, though no annulment was granted; is this person to go through the rest of their life without the sacraments? Is God THAT unmerciful? St. Paul tells us “remain in the state you were called” … meaning, when God called you to Himself as a slave, remain a slave. [Cor. 7:21-24] If 25 years later, God’s love is calling this repentant person to Himself, but no recourse may be had to an annulment, what then?
In certain case by case scenarios such as this, I truly believe it would not be wrong for them to receive the sacrament, since the 3 conditions for mortal sin are not present. IOW, it is NOT adultery. Remember, Kasper said repeatedly that this is not blanket approval, but a case by case matter to be decided between the confessor and the penitent. I would hope that some type of guidance comes from the Synod that would help these pastors. It seems utterly deplorable to me that Burke would thwart this process due to fears of what may come forth. It desperately needs to proceed as Francis directed. May God move us to earnestly pray for God’s holy will to be done as He guides the participants.
I do agree, however, that +Kasper is indeed advocating for a case-by-case approach…people on both side of the fence have demonized their opponents. The reality is that +Kasper, the Holy Father, and +Burke are all Catholic bishops in good standing…and fundamentally the differences between them are not as as vast as many have made out.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, I am aware of it, and so is pretty much everyone, which is why it doesn’t need to be spelled out every time the issue is discussed. The only significant issue here deals with giving communion to those to whom it is currently denied…for reasons other than that their annulment hasn’t come through.
The brother/sister approach is not an exception. Since there is no sin involved there is no need for an exception.
“Disciplinary parameters”? Is that how you see the doctrines involved? You’re right of course that I cannot see any alternatives. The question is, are you willing to suggest one?
Which goes to Burke’s comment about dropping this issue so the other issues could be properly addressed. It’s quite clear that as long as this issue is on the table it will be the primary focus of the synod at least as far as the public is concerned.
Which from my perspective makes any change pretty much impossible. I think what needs to be recognized here is that changes in this area cannot be limited solely to the divorced/remarried. This goes to the doctrines of sin and reconciliation; it won’t be limited to those concepts just as regards marriage.
Ender
O
otjm
Guest
Not having a PhD in theology, no, I am not going to suggest one; what I am going to do is wait for the synod to finish, and the Pope to sort out what he is going to do and to recommend.
Having lived through the process of Vatican 2, where the public was concerned, tht concern did not really impact the bishops of the world; and I don’t think that the concern of the public is going to have much impact on the synod, either. I have no inside track with Pope Francis, so I don’t know how he will react to Cardinal Burke’s comments and requests, and the petitions which seem to be in process; but if I were a betting man, I would bet that the Pope will continue on the path he has set out, with the format he has set out.
My perspective is one of calmly sitting and watching. I have a very strong faith that the Church is being led by the Holy Spirit, keeping it from evil and error, and I don’t plan on being shocked by anything. The Pope has said that there won’t be any change to doctrine or morals, so I am wiling to sit and watch.
And pray for the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Hope you don’t mind me responding twf. Cardinal Muller was actually one of the people that contributed to ‘Remaining in the truth in Christ,’ which also had Cardinal Burke as a contributor, which came out last year which is seen as a response to the Kasper proposal.
Here Cardinal Muller was interviewed, here is an excerpt:
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/matrimonio-marriage-matrimonio-32349/
Here are some more comments from Cardinal Muller:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/marriages-indissolubility-a-dogma-cardinal-clarifies-33479/
O
otjm
Guest
Thank you!
S
Sirach2
Guest
Both of these pre-dated the Synod in October. Do you have a source from Muller for anything more recent, say, after the synod?
S
Sirach2
Guest
Maybe I didn’t explain very clearly. I shared with you the sense Benedict argued, but I also shared the scenario where this “invalid” marriage cannot be “proven” to a Tribunal judge, and the party is convinced beyond a doubt in the “internal forum” --their conscience – that the first marriage is invalid. If they had no faith in the sacrament at the time of their marriage, then it is not a mortal sin since the second marriage is not adultery, and potentially able for the party to receive the sacraments.
- Status