Pope Francis - Closing Address To Synod

[dUSt]

 

The trouble is that a lot of things were 'discussed' which should not have been, because they are closed subjects. 

 

 

Closed subjects must be discussed all the time--not to change the outcome, but for the benefit of the faithful. How many times have you heard, "I wish Rome would say something about this." We can't have our cake and eat it too. Trust the church. It's what I do.

[Benedictus]

 

The trouble is that a lot of things were 'discussed' which should not have been, because they are closed subjects. To discuss them as the Synod did lends legitimacy to Kasper's and Forte's errors. Imagine if someone proposed an extraordinary synod to discuss whether or not Christ was truly the Son of God. Obviously that is a very extreme example, but imagine it. Some questions are not meant to be re-opened.

What subjects are they discussing that are closed and can't be talked about? Closing down discussion seems like the tools of a body, or person, reacting in fear that they may lose the argument (and the power they think they hold).
How can people understand, reflect and apply if they don't discuss? Discussion doesn't equal change. The church may not call a synod to change the core doctrines on Jesus, Christ, and Son of God teaching (as the Catholic church holds them) but it could hold a synod to explore, and discuss, problems of application or current questions in theology that challenge these teachings (or pose reasonable questions that deserve an answer). They could also expand and clarify understanding of existing doctrines through this process of re-evaluation. If the church never did so it would fossilize fairly quickly due to an inability to engage practically or intellectually with the developments, challenges, cultures and questions of the time.

 

The interesting thing to me is that Pope Francis can now probably clearly identify where each of his bishops he chose to comprise the Synod now stand in relation to various matters.  I think he ensured this by stating that this immediate past assembly of the Synod was to be a very open discussion between the bishops attending.  I think probably many do have personal opinions about various doctrines - while unreservedly maintaining a strict obedience to the Magisterium and our doctrines, recognising a far superior wisdom to their own.

 

 

I think the synod allows the Pope, and the other Bishops, to see exactly what the state of affairs on certain issues really is. It's positive because it allows leaders to then set a strategy to deal with it, knowing fully at that point who holds what view.  Allowing disagreement and discussion is good, for those expressing such views, but also for those who oppose them.
However, I am not convinced that such an open synod, in terms of disclosure and drafts to the public, was the best course of action at this point.  Allowing cardinals to have media interviews on the details of the process was also potentially a distraction and has damaged credibility.

[Credo in Deum]

I agree with Archbishop Gadecki that this Synod has done far, far more damage than ultimate good. It has made the Church look like it wasn't merciful and understanding before, but now that we have this new great Pope and we're rid of that mean-faced Kraut who represented the pre-Vatican II Church, the curtains have finally been lifted and now we're open and loving to everyone.

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/president-of-polish-episcopal.html

 

Again, I could be wrong, but that is the general sentiments that have been given to me, and it's certainly the sentiment being run in the media.

 

It has been presented in a "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" type of way. 

 

[Lilllabettt]

I don't really trust the Church to do whats best. I trust the Church not to teach me something that will outright lead to my damnation. o.k. But that's about it. If the last decade has taught me anything its that a personally holy Pope/ smart curia do not prevent massive policy screw ups. Policy screw ups which have the potential to lead to abject suffering among the faithful. 

 

so yeah. whenever I hear about them being busy I find myself holding my breath. 

[KnightofChrist]

Those at the Synod that pushed to discuss the "closed subjects" such as remarriage, did not do so to find better ways to teach against them. But to surrender to the world or change the Church's teaching against the "closed subjects" to open the Church up to modern times.

Edited October 21, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[PhuturePriest]

Responses and understands of the Synod like this are why the Synod was a failure:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/opinion/uganda-homosexuality-opinion/

 

 Many people believe that "working document" nonsense meant the Catholic Church "embracing the gay community" is not only plausible, but perhaps even an eventuality. The clergy's absolute failure of knowing Church teaching and knowing that these things cannot be changed has caused such a riff raff in the world that now more than ever, people think the Church is going to change its position on gay marriage. It is quite honestly sickening. The nonsense written in the working document is quite honestly disgraceful. In this day and age of the internet, we need to be bold and clear with our wording, not timid and confusing, and that document had the greatest of theologians scratching their head as to just what exactly it meant.

Edited October 21, 2014 by FuturePacker

[Nihil Obstat]

Closed subjects must be discussed all the time--not to change the outcome, but for the benefit of the faithful. How many times have you heard, "I wish Rome would say something about this." We can't have our cake and eat it too. Trust the church. It's what I do.

But there is a big difference between reiterating Church teaching, and reopening it for debate. Reiterating teachings is great, but there was precious little of that going on at the Synod.

[Ed Normile]

- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law

 

 The God of surprises wants us to abandon the written word ...? I guess the written word which I assume is the Gospel must be wrong or outdated. But heck, who could expect that God could possibly foresee the changes in human sexual mores, at least  "we still have one year to mature" cause everyone knows we childish believers of the word of God are just fooling ourselves being so hateful and unaccepting. Maybe in 2 years it will be wife swapping orgies and beastiality, I mean who could be so cruel to deny these people communion ?

 

Remember " Hate the sin, Love the sinner"

 

ed

[dUSt]

- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law

 

 The God of surprises wants us to abandon the written word ...? I guess the written word which I assume is the Gospel must be wrong or outdated. But heck, who could expect that God could possibly foresee the changes in human sexual mores, at least  "we still have one year to mature" cause everyone knows we childish believers of the word of God are just fooling ourselves being so hateful and unaccepting. Maybe in 2 years it will be wife swapping orgies and beastiality, I mean who could be so cruel to deny these people communion ?

 

Remember " Hate the sin, Love the sinner"

 

ed

 

You interpret things like the media does. Lol. Where does it say abandon the written word?

 

Here's an example of what I think the pope might be saying: If I close myself within the written word and strictly follow, "thou shalt not steal", then I would never come up with a plan of stealing my wife's wedding ring from her so I can surprise her with it a few weeks later during our 10th anniversary, with another band added to it. I would be so caught up in my interpretation of those words that I would not let the spirit of our love blossom with a wonderful surprise to my wife.

[Nihil Obstat]

You interpret things like the media does. Lol. Where does it say abandon the written word?

 

Here's an example of what I think the pope might be saying: If I close myself within the written word and strictly follow, "thou shalt not steal", then I would never come up with a plan of stealing my wife's wedding ring from her so I can surprise her with it a few weeks later during our 10th anniversary, with another band added to it. I would be so caught up in my interpretation of those words that I would not let the spirit of our love blossom with a wonderful surprise to my wife.

Except that the Church has never interpreted theft in that manner. On the other hand, the Church has always infallibly taught that to attempt a second marriage is gravely sinful, and relations in such a union constitute adultery. Kasper's proposal then to admit some such people to communion flatly contradicts what the Church has always taught, that such relations are adultery, and that one may not receive the Eucharist while in such a state.

[BarbTherese]

A second marriage without an annulment of the first is grave matter. That is an objective consideration. There are two other concurrent conditions required for mortal sin and these are subjective considerations (pastoral matters).  Only mortal sin can separate a person from God and His Church.

 

  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-most-catholics-in-america-going-to-hell

 

Catholics can make the mistake of calling grave matter a mortal sin.  Grave matter is only potentially mortally sinful.

 

______________________

 

1 Corinthians Ch11

 

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

 

 

The above passage from St Paul is interesting in that it seems that the "unworthily" St Paul is speaking about is someone who does not grasp the reality of actually receiving The Body and Blood of Jesus.  That seems to be St Paul's interpretation of "unworthily" for his times and I suspect that The Church might be able to interpret "unworthily" for a later time and times.

 

  Another point to me is: Who actually can consider themselves worthy?  The Church has answered this question for me by stating that one must be in the state of Grace.  To me being worthy to receive The Body and Blood of Jesus is a mind boggling matter!  But then Grace is indeed another mind boggling matter.

 

I am certainly not intending to arrive at conclusions in any of the above because I just do not have any.  All the above are simply questions in my own mind while always holding to what The Church teaches as a certainly by far superior wisdom in all things pertaining to Faith and Morals certainly.

Edited October 21, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[CountrySteve21]

Wonderful!

[truthfinder]

BarbaraTherese, a priest once reminded me that even if the person if not culpable of mortal sin (because they lacked one of the criteria), committing grave matter still has repercussions.  

[BarbTherese]

BarbaraTherese, a priest once reminded me that even if the person if not culpable of mortal sin (because they lacked one of the criteria), committing grave matter still has repercussions.  

 

I agree.  All sin, including venial, has repercussions both personal and for The Church.  Kind and degree of negative repercussion(s) is probably a quite complex matter.  All sin, regardless of degree, is a serious matter (as opposed to grave matter) and never to be taken lightly.  The Ultimate Judge of souls of course is God only.

 

Pope Benedict: "The only danger the church can and should fear is the sin of her members," the pope said

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104798.htm

 

  Be this as it may, it is only mortal sin that can completely separate a person from God and His Church.

 

A good quiet read and a very long one is Reconciliatio et Paenitentia.  I must confess that I am in the lay state under private vows, living alone, and probably in a far better position to read these documents than probably most in the lay state where secular life can be demanding and very short on reading time, especially for those married with families. These documents can be read over a period of time and as time given to spiritual reading.

Because I can and do read, or try to read, these documents does not make me any more informed than anyone else.  I always have my P Plates on!

 

 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY

[dUSt]

Except that the Church has never interpreted theft in that manner. On the other hand, the Church has always infallibly taught that to attempt a second marriage is gravely sinful, and relations in such a union constitute adultery. Kasper's proposal then to admit some such people to communion flatly contradicts what the Church has always taught, that such relations are adultery, and that one may not receive the Eucharist while in such a state.

 

You are making an argument where there is none. Where did the pope say that people in an invalid second marriage can receive communion? I must have missed it. If you can't show me where he said that then my original statement of "you guys are interpreting things like the media" stands. That is the only point I am trying to make--that some people are jumping to conclusions prematurely.