|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
What a bizarre sequence of events these last couple of days. First Cardinal Kasper gives an interview where he's quoted as rubbishing dialogue with people from Africa, Asia, or Muslim countries on DH topics
I can see why he said it It is impossible to have a 'dialogue' when people aren't prepared to listen (that goes on with both sides).
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, according to the RCC, the person in mortal sin first needs the sacrament of reconciliation.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
Is it not forbidden and indeed detrimental to receive communion while in mortal sin?
Isn't this the exact situation in which a person is most in need of meeting and receiving Jesus Christ in the Sacrament? I understand the need for rules, but I fail to see how denying Communion to "sinners" can possibly be interpreted as following the teaching and example of our Savior.
If Holy Communion was the only sacrament, or the primary sacrament dealing with sin, then you might have a point. Since however there is the sacrament of confession, you don't. RC practice follows the explicit guidance of St Paul on this matter
quote:
1 Cor 11:27-32
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It's puzzling that this thread has gone silent. Over the weekend, we've had the final result, with the bishops outvoting the Pope, the very concept of which goes against everything the rest of us have ever assumed about how the RCC works.
We've also seen our media home in on a 'no change about gays' tack.
Do these newsmongers understand so little about Christianity in general, yet alone the RCC not to appreciate that this wasn't about the gay issue and was never going to be?
As Andrew Brown has pointed out, remarriage affects far more people. Even the possibility of looking at this in a different way would be so fundamental a revolution in Catholic thinking and theological identity that unless this actually did get reviewed in some way, any prospect that the RCC might even get round to looking at its take on homosexuality yet alone change anything, is a bizarre delusion.
There's talk of its coming back in a year's time. Is there actually any prospect now of the RCC reconsidering it's position on remarriage. Or is this a fob-off? Is this as dead a duck as it aways seems to have been? Will this continue to remain, as with clerical celibacy, until the parousia, so fundamental to the RCC's self definition as against the Laodicean Orthodox and Prods that it will destroy the prospect of another look?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's puzzling that this thread has gone silent. Over the weekend, we've had the final result, with the bishops outvoting the Pope, the very concept of which goes against everything the rest of us have ever assumed about how the RCC works.
Not so - a majority of votes supported the Pope but simply failed, narrowly, to reach a 2/3rds majority.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Becoming more tolerant of divorce, for example, risks alienating all of the couples who have, perhaps at deep personal cost to themselves, spent their lives trying to be faithful to what the RCC currently teaches. They might end up feeling abandoned by the Church whose teachings they were trying to obey.
Any liberalisation of any law will mean some people find themselves (and more particularly others) with new options overnight.
In the very near future there will even be people who have no idea of the struggle and heartache the old situation caused to so many like themselves.
This does not mean they should hang on with all their strength to their previous "victim" status or parade it as an excuse to maintain the status quo.
They are not forced to (in this case) marry or to remain as they are - they can choose. But it is a choice; and neither a burden nor a privilege.
We struggle for these things so that others will not have to go throught the things we had to suffer. Even when that means they have no idea what we suffered so they should be able to do and be what we could not.
[Which I freely admit I have to remind myself sometimes - I know the feeling]
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, according to the RCC, the person in mortal sin first needs the sacrament of reconciliation.
Te sin of Sodom was inhospitality. So maybe the bishops need to confess this mortal sin to gays.
Your comment is stupid on so many levels.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's puzzling that this thread has gone silent. Over the weekend, we've had the final result, with the bishops outvoting the Pope, the very concept of which goes against everything the rest of us have ever assumed about how the RCC works.
Indeed. Mind you, all of this has relevance only in a derived sense. The pope actually didn't say much about anything. So the assumptions about what he wants are cobbled together from various foot-in-mouth sessions with the press, plus his horrible control over the synod's organisation. He doesn't even need plausible deniability now, for he offered no explicit opinion. And the official power of the synod as far as doctrine and disciple of the RCC is concerned is basically zero. It is more like an expert consultation. But the pope could just go ahead tomorrow and do what he thinks is right.
However, the real issues with power in the RCC plays at a deeper level. A pope needs the bishops on his side for most practical purposes. The hierarchy of the RCC is actually very thin compared to any commercial business. If things go wrong anywhere, there is very little room to manoeuvre. Rome cannot run things in individual dioceses, and "qualified personnel" that could just take over is lacking everywhere. Furthermore, the pope is supposed to be a point of unification for the episcopate, and certainly it is his job to hold the Church at large together. If he just backs some divisive agenda outright, against major opposition of the bishops, then he may end up being responsible for a major schism. History weighs heavily on the popes (or at least it should).
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do these newsmongers understand so little about Christianity in general, yet alone the RCC not to appreciate that this wasn't about the gay issue and was never going to be?
They might understand that very well, but they are in the business of selling copy.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's talk of its coming back in a year's time. Is there actually any prospect now of the RCC reconsidering it's position on remarriage. Or is this a fob-off? Is this as dead a duck as it aways seems to have been?
Well, there certainly was a massive loss of face and trust for the liberal side. Normally I would expect that for the next round major ambition will be shelved.
Though it appears to be the case that many on the liberal side seem to think that Pope Francis is their "now or never" man. So maybe they will just go "all in" again next time as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Will this continue to remain, as with clerical celibacy, until the parousia, so fundamental to the RCC's self definition as against the Laodicean Orthodox and Prods that it will destroy the prospect of another look?
This is much, much more important that clerical celibacy, which could be ended tomorrow without any serious doctrinal concerns. Clerical celibacy is upheld for reasons of prudence and inspiration, so the proper reaction to abolishing it would range from "about time" to "how unwise". But it would not include "wrong, forbidden, impossible" in a moral and/or Divine sense.
If Rome makes wrong moves concerning marriage (and to a lesser degree, homosexuality), I would seriously consider leaving the Church. If they abandoned clerical celibacy, I would roll my eyes and hope for the best.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's puzzling that this thread has gone silent. Over the weekend, we've had the final result, with the bishops outvoting the Pope, the very concept of which goes against everything the rest of us have ever assumed about how the RCC works.
Not so - a majority of votes supported the Pope but simply failed, narrowly, to reach a 2/3rds majority.
You are formally right, but practically wrong. The paragraphs that did not get the 2/3rds majority were watered down already. Even the compromise proposal didn't make it. And these things are supposed to be close to unanimous, like >90%. It is supposed to be the bishops speaking with one voice, not some kind of democratic fight with one side winning. Not even getting 2/3rds is a huge deal.
Mind you, continuing with the atrociously biased handling of the synod, the decision has been made to include the rejected paragraphs in the document that will be circulated, albeit marked as rejected. This rather shows what was supposed to have happened, and what the still intended direction of travel is.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If Rome makes wrong moves concerning marriage (and to a lesser degree, homosexuality), I would seriously consider leaving the Church.
I'm not sure. Were there any reforms or procedural change concerning marriage that you would have NOT regarded as a sticking point?
Much of the earlier Catholic contributions to this thread were concerned with the issues of marriage, divorce and communion, and what reforms might be possible without departure from what Holy Tradition teaches about indissolubility. I'd wondered if the conflation of these important issues with the Church's reponse to homosexuality might have damaged the possibility of agreement to some reforms on marriage, divorce, communion.
On communion, I appreciate the principle and the warning over unworthy participation. From the arguments I'd read so did those who were in favour of some measures of reform which might permit participation by the remarried without damage to that principle. Have those arguments now been lost, shelved, or what?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
Is it not forbidden and indeed detrimental to receive communion while in mortal sin?
Isn't this the exact situation in which a person is most in need of meeting and receiving Jesus Christ in the Sacrament? I understand the need for rules, but I fail to see how denying Communion to "sinners" can possibly be interpreted as following the teaching and example of our Savior.
If Holy Communion was the only sacrament, or the primary sacrament dealing with sin, then you might have a point. Since however there is the sacrament of confession, you don't. RC practice follows the explicit guidance of St Paul on this matter
quote:
1 Cor 11:27-32
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
The context of Paul's instructions are to do with the rich excluding the poor from table fellowship, not to do with where and when willies are placed. Although Paul does seem to object to shagging one's father's wife. AFASIK few outside the Corinthians Christian community have been tempted to push that boundary, though YMMV.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure. Were there any reforms or procedural change concerning marriage that you would have NOT regarded as a sticking point?
There is quite likely stuff in the annulment process that I neither know nor care about. There are other things in the annulment process that could change, which I would consider unwise but not impossible.
In fact, the Orthodox procedure as it is usually presented is not a problem as far as marriage itself is concerned, because they are not in fact re-marrying people sacramentally. It is a problem as far as admitting grave and unrepentant sinners to the Eucharist is concerned. Or to be fair to the Orthodox, to do so after they had a public penitential ceremony about their continuing sin in church first. Now, the incoherence I could not accept is to allow this for marriage only, as the Orthodox apparently do. That's just theological and doctrinal nonsense. But if one were to elevate this to a new general principle, then I would actually have to sit down and evaluate whether that is a feasible development of Church doctrine and practice, or not. I would say probably not, but I have not done that work...
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Much of the earlier Catholic contributions to this thread were concerned with the issues of marriage, divorce and communion, and what reforms might be possible without departure from what Holy Tradition teaches about indissolubility. I'd wondered if the conflation of these important issues with the Church's reponse to homosexuality might have damaged the possibility of agreement to some reforms on marriage, divorce, communion.
I think the main problem there was not the inclusion of the topic, but quite simply that it was a lying manipulation that introduced it. The guy who was ghostwriting the text simply inserted some passages corresponding to his own convictions concerning homosexuality, which had nothing to do with his actual job of summing up what the discussion of the bishops had been about. That pissed off a lot of people...
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On communion, I appreciate the principle and the warning over unworthy participation. From the arguments I'd read so did those who were in favour of some measures of reform which might permit participation by the remarried without damage to that principle. Have those arguments now been lost, shelved, or what?
I'm not aware of any arguments to this effect, and I struggle to see how they could be made. After all, the remarried can already make a spiritual communion, i.e., participate in mass but for taking (physical) communion. That's what I do when I have sinned and not gone to confession yet. The only step up is indeed precisely unworthy participation in the (physical) communion. And the argument for that is along the lines of "(merciful) rules within the household" (oikonomia), or what in the Latin would be called a "dispensation". The argument is that this specific unworthiness should be overlooked and tolerated. (And as I mentioned above, that makes no sense. It is typical Orthodox incoherence that is kept stable simply by tradition. The Latin side does not work like that, thank God. If one can give dispensation here, then one has to explain exactly why, so that one can use the same principle and apply it to other sinners and their situation. Some people call that legalistic. I call it principled and fair.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... If Rome makes wrong moves concerning marriage (and to a lesser degree, homosexuality), I would seriously consider leaving the Church. If they abandoned clerical celibacy, I would roll my eyes and hope for the best. ...
I've said this before of similar comments, but that seems to be a very un-Catholic, Protestant, approach, judging either the Pope or the RCC according to how far they agree with oneself or the reasons why one became a Catholic.
I'm not a Catholic, but to be a Catholic isn't one supposed to believe that it is the one true church. Though it may wobble a bit from time to time, over the centuries it cannot and does not err. So even if one thinks it's wobbling about anything now, e.g. indulgences in the C16 or paedophile clergy in the C20, one has to stick with it because that's the only train that will get there in the end.
Perhaps I should also add, by the way, that I'd prefer to have an explanation of Orthodox teaching on this subject from someone who is Orthodox, rather than someone who is determined to persuade us that the RCC has got it completely right and the Orthodox has got it completely wrong. After all, although I'm Prod and CofE, there are other areas where I think the Orthodox are more consistent with Scripture and Tradition than the RCC.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, according to the RCC, the person in mortal sin first needs the sacrament of reconciliation.
Te sin of Sodom was inhospitality. So maybe the bishops need to confess this mortal sin to gays.
Your comment is stupid on so many levels.
For example?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In fact, the Orthodox procedure as it is usually presented is not a problem as far as marriage itself is concerned, because they are not in fact re-marrying people sacramentally. It is a problem as far as admitting grave and unrepentant sinners to the Eucharist is concerned. Or to be fair to the Orthodox, to do so after they had a public penitential ceremony about their continuing sin in church first. Now, the incoherence I could not accept is to allow this for marriage only, as the Orthodox apparently do. That's just theological and doctrinal nonsense. But if one were to elevate this to a new general principle, then I would actually have to sit down and evaluate whether that is a feasible development of Church doctrine and practice, or not. I would say probably not, but I have not done that work...
Hit reply too soon!!! I wanted to ask what exactly you meant by this. I'm a bit confused. I'd love to answer you to the best of my knowledge from the Orthodox perspective, but need a bit more info.
[ 21. October 2014, 16:23: Message edited by: Anyuta ]
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've said this before of similar comments, but that seems to be a very un-Catholic, Protestant, approach, judging either the Pope or the RCC according to how far they agree with oneself or the reasons why one became a Catholic.
That's not really what's going on at least with me. It is however true (and part of RC doctrine, of course) that in the end everybody has to make their own judgements about everything. And that one will be held to account by God based on those judgements. If I say "I will follow the RCC in all she says", then that is still my decision based on my judgement that this would be a good thing to do. We can make "meta-judgements", like "I will trust the doctor on what he says about getting rid of my disease". In this case many small decisions (about what medicines to take, what diet to follow, whether one can work or should rest, ...) are followed "automatically" according to the doctor's word. But that's just because all those small decisions derive from the big decision about trusting the doctor that one has originally taken. I cannot pretend that all these small decisions are not ultimately mine.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not a Catholic, but to be a Catholic isn't one supposed to believe that it is the one true church. Though it may wobble a bit from time to time, over the centuries it cannot and does not err. So even if one thinks it's wobbling about anything now, e.g. indulgences in the C16 or paedophile clergy in the C20, one has to stick with it because that's the only train that will get there in the end.
This is very confused, and in consequence rather inaccurate. In the RCC there is a clear distinction between dogma, doctrine, discipline and behaviour. Dogma is unchangeable, doctrine is somewhat changeable but the less the more it is like dogma (and most doctrines we are discussing are close to being dogma), discipline can be changed at the drop of a hat (but usually isn't, because it is supposed to be helpful), and behaviour can be all over the place (though it should follow dogma, doctrine and discipline).
Hence the abuses of the indulgences, and the pedophile priests, are basically meaningless as far as the RC core of dogma and doctrine goes. They are behaviour against the core of dogma and doctrine, perhaps - or perhaps not - encouraged by badly chosen discipline. Of course, one can point to institutional problems that made these failures more likely, and one can ask harsh questions about the absence of safeguards that would make these failures unlikely. But that really is just bad behaviour of the RC governors. There is nothing in the RC core of dogma and doctrine which says that you should give people the illusion that they can buy their way into heaven, or that it is fine to rape children.
The issue at hand here is however quite different. The RCC has made a range of very clear pronouncements about sex and marriage at the doctrinal level, and one can argue, even as dogma. If the RCC changes anything at that level, she puts her own core into question. The RCC claims that she has always taught the truth in matters of religion and morals. That is why one should stick to her whatever nonsense may be happening as far as discipline or behaviour is concerned. The core itself is protected against human failure, safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. The principles cannot be corrupted, whatever corrupted mess humans make out of them. That is the very idea of the RCC. So if one judges that the RCC has done something that actually corrupts the core, then it's game over. The gates of hell have prevailed, the whole thing is a sham.
And so that's precisely my statement. If the RCC is essentially contradicting herself across time on this issue, which is at a doctrinal to dogmatic level, then that invalidates her claim to be Divine. As an individual, it is up to me to judge that, because that is about her core authority in which I have to believe in order to believe anything else she says. If I doubt that the doctor actually is a qualified doctor, then I cannot trust in the cure he proposes. I have to go and find a real doctor. And if a man claiming to be a doctor says something one day about my disease, and something very different the next day, and nothing really has changed, then this is good reason to doubt his qualifications!
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps I should also add, by the way, that I'd prefer to have an explanation of Orthodox teaching on this subject from someone who is Orthodox, rather than someone who is determined to persuade us that the RCC has got it completely right and the Orthodox has got it completely wrong. After all, although I'm Prod and CofE, there are other areas where I think the Orthodox are more consistent with Scripture and Tradition than the RCC.
I think my description of what the Orthodox practically do for re-marriages is accurate, and I have seen it described this way by the Orthodox (mousethief and others) on SoF. Of course, my value judgement of this procedure (as incoherent) presumably would not be accepted by the Orthodox.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You don't think the truth can change ? The relationship between God and humanity is static ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You don't think the truth can change ? The relationship between God and humanity is static ?
Truth is the accordance of concept with reality. So if reality changes, then concepts have to change to remain true. Does God change reality? Sure. In particular, the "Jesus event" introduced lots of changes to reality, including to marriage. Does God change everyday life for lots of people all the time. Sure. For example, it will be true to think that God has answered some prayers. However, does God change human nature? No, he never has. Does God change the essential structure of His interactions with humans in grace? Yes, he has done so twice (Adam & Christ) and will do so once more (Second Coming). Is there hence scope for the truth about marriage to change in the meantime? Nope. Neither human nature nor God's essential provision of grace will change till the Second Coming. So, the truth about marriage as updated by Jesus Christ will remain as it is till He comes again.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Based on what IngoB ? How can you know in advance what the Holy Spirit might do ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Come Doublethink, that's literally, conservatively, uncontextually, universally, unquestioningly and unquestionably obvious once and for all time.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Based on what IngoB ? How can you know in advance what the Holy Spirit might do ?
This is known by the revelation of God in scripture and tradition, which specifically and prominently included the institution of the Church by Jesus Christ, which is the primary means by which the Holy Spirit teaches us God's truth through the ages.
The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. Prophecy has ended with Jesus Christ. Indeed, revelation properly speaking has ended with Jesus Christ. Any personal revelation now is either in accord with the general revelation, or false hallucination. Any new teaching is either an organic development of the deposit of faith once given, or false innovation. God has closed the case, and only He can reopen it - and He has told us that He will do so in human person. Until that time, there is no fundamental change of faith possible, just a filling out of the shape once provided for it, and superficial adaptations to suit the times. Two millennia are like a day before God, and twenty more would still be early days. If you are getting bored with this "stasis" then you could pray "Maranatha".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Based on what IngoB ? How can you know in advance what the Holy Spirit might do ?
This is known by the revelation of God in scripture and tradition, which specifically and prominently included the institution of the Church by Jesus Christ, which is the primary means by which the Holy Spirit teaches us God's truth through the ages.
The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. Prophecy has ended with Jesus Christ. Indeed, revelation properly speaking has ended with Jesus Christ. Any personal revelation now is either in accord with the general revelation, or false hallucination. Any new teaching is either an organic development of the deposit of faith once given, or false innovation. God has closed the case, and only He can reopen it - and He has told us that He will do so in human person. Until that time, there is no fundamental change of faith possible, just a filling out of the shape once provided for it, and superficial adaptations to suit the times. Two millennia are like a day before God, and twenty more would still be early days. If you are getting bored with this "stasis" then you could pray "Maranatha".
This does, however, presume that the doctrine is wholly perfect in its interpretation of dogma. If one were to say, for example, that while the intention and expectation is that marriage is life long and it is sinful to bring a marriage to an end, it is a one-off sin and not an ongoing one so long as the former spouse is looked after appropriately. There is (pretty much) necessarily a defect of love (on one side or another) when a marriage breaks down but in the context of the 1st century (and indeed every century up to the 20th in western cultures) women who were divorced would have had little or no means of support, and their husband by ending the marriage would be depriving them of home, family and any means of living. In this situation it is perfectly possible to see that the principles remain the same but how they are applied depends on the cultural circumstances.
It is not hard to see other circumstances, particularly regarding dead horses, where one might consider that the RCC has taken a principle that should, in their terms, be dogma and kept the first century cultural application of it as doctrine.
I think the slavery comparison is apposite. In the 1st century context, where a well looked after slave could have a better life than many free men, and Christians were not in a position to radically alter the social order, the way for slaves and slave owners to demonstrate love of neighbour was to be obedient and to treat slaves well. I hope no-one would dispute that this does not mean that slaves in the ante-bellum southern US were wrong to try to escape nor for Christians to campaign to end slavery.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If one were to say, for example, that while the intention and expectation is that marriage is life long and it is sinful to bring a marriage to an end, it is a one-off sin and not an ongoing one so long as the former spouse is looked after appropriately.
This is in fact contrary to Orthodox orthopraxis. If breaking one's marriage was a "one-off sin", then the appropriate way of dealing with it would of course be the sacrament of confession. And after the absolution obtained there, there would be no reason at all for the Orthodox to impose a penitential service on a remarriage. The Orthodox continued resistance to the pressure from the Emperor and his court concerning remarriage (which was often a crucial means for Byzantine nobles to get the children one needed for continuing one's dynasty!) crumbled in about the 9th century. It is then that the normative way of dealing with marriage issues started to deviate from the West. And yet, the Eastern liturgy still mourns the imposition of this secular practice on the Church's sacramental life to this day. As always, the best thing about the Orthodox is their liturgy.
Anyway, the key issue is quite simply the following. Let's imagine a young couple in marriage preparation being lectured on the indissolubility of marriage, and that they really must be sure as a couple that they can commit to that. Now they sit at the dinner table and the wife turns to the husband and says: "Curious how the priest went on today. My parents are divorced, and they attend Church and all that just like everybody else."
That's it. That's the very end of the indissolubility of marriage. It is no more. You can pretend all you want, go on about beautiful ideals all you want, but that is just the end of that. Because sacraments must make real what they signify.
The indissolubility of marriage as an ideal is meaningless if it has no practical implications. It really is. Christianity deals in realities, not in wishful thinking. In the Orthodox practice, there is at least something left. A token. A single tear running down the liturgical cheek for something valuable lost. Among the Protestants, nothing. It's all gone. Dissolved in false mercy...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I would say the RC system is worse - rather than mourn for the loss of something that had many good things about it, but yet still ended, the RCC would have you, if you wish to marry again, pretend that your marriage was no marriage at all, that it was merely an extended exercise in fornication.
If one were to take the view that there is a sensible distinction between sacramental and natural marriage, which if I'm understanding RC teaching is what is implied then surely it would make sense that if a marriage has collapsed then, a priori, it cannot have been the sacramental marriage which has a lifelong character. It seems to me that if, as you say, we are dealing with facts, then the fact of a marriage patently no longer existing ought to be sufficient for the granting of, in RC terms, an annulment (much as irretrievable breakdown of marriage is deemed grounds for divorce in civil courts).
It is a nonsense to proclaim the indissolubility of marriage as a sort of cosmic certainty. I can see how it is arrived at from the Gospels but I don't think it is as well defined as the RCC makes out. Clearly some marriages, terribly, do end prior to death. Divorce is simply a recognition of a state already existing.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's it. That's the very end of the indissolubility of marriage. It is no more. You can pretend all you want, go on about beautiful ideals all you want, but that is just the end of that. Because sacraments must make real what they signify.
The indissolubility of marriage as an ideal is meaningless if it has no practical implications. It really is. Christianity deals in realities, not in wishful thinking. In the Orthodox practice, there is at least something left. A token. A single tear running down the liturgical cheek for something valuable lost. Among the Protestants, nothing. It's all gone. Dissolved in false mercy...
IngoB, I know nothing about your personal history, nor need to, but it must be rather different from mine. I doubt my mother has ever believed in the indissolubility of marriage, but looking at her divorce I could never think that there were no practical and spiritual implications. Her scars were deep, and I am glad she is remarried, and it is in many ways a healthier marriage than I ever knew her first marriage to be. Still, she and her husband both seem to bear scars from their previous marriages. Actually seeing her supports my belief that marriage is indissoluble, at least in a certain understanding of the word. She is only connected to my father by pain (and many years of time) but that connection will never break. On the other hand, when she turned to her church to help her heal, they sinned--I'm not going to give details, so you'll have to take my word on that*--and ended up scaring her away from institutional religion. The woman who taught me never to miss a Sunday will probably never be a member of a church again. Even if marriage is indissoluble, we are human, and when all that's left of the permanent bond is shrunk into pain, sin, and brokenness, the remaining connection may be acknowledged, but the people must be allowed to move on.
*If it helps, this was a conservative protestant church, so their failing was nothing related to Roman Catholic belief.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would say the RC system is worse - rather than mourn for the loss of something that had many good things about it, but yet still ended, the RCC would have you, if you wish to marry again, pretend that your marriage was no marriage at all, that it was merely an extended exercise in fornication.
There was no real marriage, and yet the children are legitimate! The RC system is a fantasy involving mutual contradictions that even the Red Queen would find difficult to believe at the same time.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Surely the idea is that the marriage may have not been a 'real' sacramental marriage,although it may have been a valid civil marriage with subsequent valid civil divorce.Generally the RC church will only marry those who are already married in a civil ceremony.(in the UK,but not in too many other European countries,the priest acts also as the civil registrar.)
Even if the marrriage (sacramental or otherwise) is annulled by the RC authorities,the parties to the annulled marriage may have believed that they were properly married and so that period should not be looked upon as a period of fornication.
Also assuming that fornication is a sin then one must be aware of the sin to be found culpable.
While civil law authorities sometimes do not accept ignorance of the law as an excuse,the RC church says that one must be aware of a sin to be considered as being sinful.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would say the RC system is worse - rather than mourn for the loss of something that had many good things about it, but yet still ended, the RCC would have you, if you wish to marry again, pretend that your marriage was no marriage at all, that it was merely an extended exercise in fornication.
There is nothing particular contentious about the RC principle at work there. If you make a contract, swear an oath, give a promise, then you need to be able to do so and understand what you are doing. If this is not the case, then no matter how much what follows may look as being in fulfilment, it is not bound by the contract / oath / promise. Whether of course in practice this principle is being abused is a different question. The high number of annulments in particular in the USA would suggest widespread abuse.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If one were to take the view that there is a sensible distinction between sacramental and natural marriage, which if I'm understanding RC teaching is what is implied then surely it would make sense that if a marriage has collapsed then, a priori, it cannot have been the sacramental marriage which has a lifelong character. It seems to me that if, as you say, we are dealing with facts, then the fact of a marriage patently no longer existing ought to be sufficient for the granting of, in RC terms, an annulment (much as irretrievable breakdown of marriage is deemed grounds for divorce in civil courts).
That is just about the most absurd argument I have heard about this... So if you have a contract with a supplier for so and so many tons of sand to be delivered, and the supplier fails to deliver any, then your conclusion is that there never was a contract in the first place since the contractual obligation was not fulfilled. If you have sworn allegiance to the queen, and if she calls you to war and you piss off and hide, then you would say that there never was any oath to her in the first place since you did not honour it. If there is a guarantee on your toaster, and it breaks down during warranty, then this too bad for you because that the toaster stopped working demonstrates that it was never guaranteed to work. If your renounce the devil to get baptised, and later perform a Satanic ritual, then you conclude that you were never baptised. Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It is a nonsense to proclaim the indissolubility of marriage as a sort of cosmic certainty. I can see how it is arrived at from the Gospels but I don't think it is as well defined as the RCC makes out. Clearly some marriages, terribly, do end prior to death. Divorce is simply a recognition of a state already existing.
Clearly some marriages fail, to the point where the only realistic option is the separation of the spouses, including a splitting up of property and child care duties. Such divorce is tragic, and should be avoided if possible, but is not forbidden in the RCC. What is forbidden is to conclude that what has failed simply ceases to exist. A Christian marriage is precisely not just a mutual promise, but a mutual promise in Christ. You are binding yourself before God, not just to another. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. And since you cannot break what God has joined, you simply are stuck with your marriage. Even if both spouses hate this marriage with every fibre of their being, even if the entire world wishes nothing more than that it would not be. It just is. You made it be. Because God's word is existence, and you promised yourself to each other in this world by the power of God. If you don't want that, then you should not do it. That's all there is to it, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Even if marriage is indissoluble, we are human, and when all that's left of the permanent bond is shrunk into pain, sin, and brokenness, the remaining connection may be acknowledged, but the people must be allowed to move on.
Agreed. However, "moving on" is not the same as "going back to how things were before".
I should mention that personally I'm rather confused by the focus this discussion tends to take. We always talk about the physical communion, as if this was the be all and end all of RC spiritual life. Well, I've sat many times in mass and stayed put because I was not in the state to receive. And I would not say that the spiritual communion I had then was such a poor substitute for the physical one that it would spiritually kill me to be reduced to it. Really not. It seems to me that the spiritual aspects is getting overloaded there by a social one. It is as if the physical communion was a necessary signal for being accepted by the community, or something like that. Well, if so then how about working on this perception - or indeed this reality - for I think this is not only not necessary, but spiritually false.
Indeed, if I was asked (nobody ever asks me, don't worry) then I would say what should get looked at is not the participation in communion, but the sacrament of confession. That is in my eyes a much more serious problem. Basically, I would like to ask the pope and the bishops if it is not possible to give a partial absolution from sin, in cases where there is a long term hindrance (like a civil remarriage) that is going nowhere any time soon. I agree that the priest cannot remove this serious issue, and I agree that one should only partake in physical communion if one has no serious issues. But should it not be possible for the faithful to do their regular "sin management" apart from this - acknowledged - problem?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There was no real marriage, and yet the children are legitimate! The RC system is a fantasy involving mutual contradictions that even the Red Queen would find difficult to believe at the same time.
Luckily legitimacy has ceased to be relevant for most practical purposes. It is interesting that it is the state, rather than the Church, which in some cases continues to make a big deal out of it (namely concerning citizenship).
Anyway, the RC principle is quite simple. A marriage is valid unless and until proven otherwise, and all other law and governance can rely on this for whatever purposes. There is no retroactive unravelling of whatever action has been taken in good faith about this marriage by any party, just because it later turned out to have been invalid. An annulment affects the future, not the past. It's not just that children remain legitimate. For example, if you have committed adultery while putatively married, this does not suddenly become fornication just because your marriage turns out to be invalid. So if you confessed adultery, done your penance and were absolved, you don't have to redo this for fornication. (Yes, I guess this is trivial. I can't think of some other profound consequence at the level of legitimacy right now.) You believed at the time that you were married, and that is what counts for your actions, and the actions of others, concerning your putative marriage.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, according to the RCC, the person in mortal sin first needs the sacrament of reconciliation.
Te sin of Sodom was inhospitality. So maybe the bishops need to confess this mortal sin to gays.
Your comment is stupid on so many levels.
Oh, come on! You can do it! Stiff upper lip, now.
Explain why it is so "stupid" or carry on being irrelevant because you won't engage.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, there certainly was a massive loss of face and trust for the liberal side.
If I were a conservative Catholic, I don't think I'd be quite so sanguine.
This paragraph is pure speculation, but I suspect the pope wished for the Synod take a more relaxed approach than it did. Just how far he might have wished that to go is really anybody's guess, and he seems to have a certain amount of political cleverness. I'm under no illusion that he wanted things to go as far as many of the news reports seemed to suggest.
It's interesting to note his appointments, though. The new Archbishop of Chicago was amazed at his appointment, and it probably would not have been made under Pope Benedict. It's not unlikely he'll be a Cardinal in a few years.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Even if marriage is indissoluble, we are human, and when all that's left of the permanent bond is shrunk into pain, sin, and brokenness, the remaining connection may be acknowledged, but the people must be allowed to move on.
Agreed. However, "moving on" is not the same as "going back to how things were before".
I should mention that personally I'm rather confused by the focus this discussion tends to take. We always talk about the physical communion, as if this was the be all and end all of RC spiritual life. Well, I've sat many times in mass and stayed put because I was not in the state to receive. And I would not say that the spiritual communion I had then was such a poor substitute for the physical one that it would spiritually kill me to be reduced to it. Really not. It seems to me that the spiritual aspects is getting overloaded there by a social one. It is as if the physical communion was a necessary signal for being accepted by the community, or something like that. Well, if so then how about working on this perception - or indeed this reality - for I think this is not only not necessary, but spiritually false.
Indeed, if I was asked (nobody ever asks me, don't worry) then I would say what should get looked at is not the participation in communion, but the sacrament of confession. That is in my eyes a much more serious problem. Basically, I would like to ask the pope and the bishops if it is not possible to give a partial absolution from sin, in cases where there is a long term hindrance (like a civil remarriage) that is going nowhere any time soon. I agree that the priest cannot remove this serious issue, and I agree that one should only partake in physical communion if one has no serious issues. But should it not be possible for the faithful to do their regular "sin management" apart from this - acknowledged - problem?
But I never said go on the way things were before either. By move on I mean have it acknowledged that one can form a new bond with a new person. Is that bond as indissoluble? I don't know. Perhaps not honestly, but it is still real, it is still meaningful, and I still think God blesses it, though I accept that you will not.
Re physical vs. spiritual communion, you may just be a better person than I. I crave the physical reality of communion, and watching everyone else take it would be no better than being told that Jesus had come down to earth and was in the next room chatting with people, but I wouldn't be allowed to go there.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
This paragraph is pure speculation, but I suspect the pope wished for the Synod take a more relaxed approach than it did. [...] I'm under no illusion that he wanted things to go as far as many of the news reports seemed to suggest.
What reason do we have to suspect this?
So much of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding this synod is premised on the idea that we know what Pope Francis wants/wanted, based on a few ultra-vague offhand statements that he made. Media types seized on these and ran with it, telling the world that Francis wanted, among other things, full inclusion for LGBT persons. But he never said that; he said nothing of the sort. It is all just projection onto Francis of the desires of secular persons and liberal Catholics.
More and more, Francis remains a mystery and therefore a Rorschach test for Catholics who can see in him whatever they want to see.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
What reason do we have to suspect this?
Well, I was the first to admit it was speculation.
What makes me suspect it, however, is that I otherwise see no real pressing need for the Synod to be called in the first place.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
What reason do we have to suspect this?
Well, I was the first to admit it was speculation.
What makes me suspect it, however, is that I otherwise see no real pressing need for the Synod to be called in the first place.
As I said a few posts ago, I think he was hoping he could get the bishops at least to engage, even if they didn't get anywhere, with the pastoral limbo of the huge numbers of Catholics throughout the world who are in legally valid but ecclesiastically invalid marriages. All along, it has been wishful thinking among the sociologically liberal media in a few western countries to imagine that the synod was going to address the gay issue or that it was even a significant item on the agenda.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, according to the RCC, the person in mortal sin first needs the sacrament of reconciliation.
Te sin of Sodom was inhospitality. So maybe the bishops need to confess this mortal sin to gays.
Your comment is stupid on so many levels.
Oh, come on! You can do it! Stiff upper lip, now.
Explain why it is so "stupid" or carry on being irrelevant because you won't engage.
Irrelevant!!!!
Oh No!!!
Not Irrelevant!!!
The Horror!!!!
Engage with what?
Your ad hominem which is only appropriate for Hell.
or
Leo's reference to Dead Horse which is only appropriate for Dead Horses.
For the record, if I'm not considered irrelevant by those who use irrelevant as an insult, I'm doing something wrong.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 22. October 2014, 18:01: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Alright, Shipmates, calm down hereabouts. There's scope in DH for discussing Catholicism and attitudes to homosexuality and there's plenty of room in Hell for you to be as ad hominem as you like. The occasional aside normally gets by, but please don't pick it up and run with it.
Stick to the usual Purgatory guidelines. You know what they are.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As I said a few posts ago, I think he was hoping he could get the bishops at least to engage, even if they didn't get anywhere, with the pastoral limbo of the huge numbers of Catholics throughout the world who are in legally valid but ecclesiastically invalid marriages.
To be honest, I didn't expect the gay issue to come up at all, and was surprised that it did.
There is only one thing that might reveal for us what the Pope may have hoped will happen, and that is to watch future appointments and preferments. His recent appointments are what led me to question whether IngoB's assessment of the defeat of the liberal faction was correct or just wishful thinking.
If I had been part of the Synod and hoping for whatever cynical reason to catch the Pope's eye with a view to promotion, I think I would have tried to position myself as a moderate. In two or three years I think we'll know if that would have been a misjudgment.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If one were to take the view that there is a sensible distinction between sacramental and natural marriage, which if I'm understanding RC teaching is what is implied then surely it would make sense that if a marriage has collapsed then, a priori, it cannot have been the sacramental marriage which has a lifelong character. It seems to me that if, as you say, we are dealing with facts, then the fact of a marriage patently no longer existing ought to be sufficient for the granting of, in RC terms, an annulment (much as irretrievable breakdown of marriage is deemed grounds for divorce in civil courts).
That is just about the most absurd argument I have heard about this... So if you have a contract with a supplier for so and so many tons of sand to be delivered, and the supplier fails to deliver any, then your conclusion is that there never was a contract in the first place since the contractual obligation was not fulfilled. If you have sworn allegiance to the queen, and if she calls you to war and you piss off and hide, then you would say that there never was any oath to her in the first place since you did not honour it. If there is a guarantee on your toaster, and it breaks down during warranty, then this too bad for you because that the toaster stopped working demonstrates that it was never guaranteed to work. If your renounce the devil to get baptised, and later perform a Satanic ritual, then you conclude that you were never baptised. Etc.
My question is about what happens once the oath has been broken. If you have a contract to deliver sand, and are unable to fulfil it, then you would provide a refund and probably an apology. Traditionally an oath of fealty would be accompanied by obligations on both the vassal and their leige - the failure to fulfil one would lead to the withdrawal of the other. In each of these instances the contract is null and void.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It is a nonsense to proclaim the indissolubility of marriage as a sort of cosmic certainty. I can see how it is arrived at from the Gospels but I don't think it is as well defined as the RCC makes out. Clearly some marriages, terribly, do end prior to death. Divorce is simply a recognition of a state already existing.
Clearly some marriages fail, to the point where the only realistic option is the separation of the spouses, including a splitting up of property and child care duties. Such divorce is tragic, and should be avoided if possible, but is not forbidden in the RCC. What is forbidden is to conclude that what has failed simply ceases to exist. A Christian marriage is precisely not just a mutual promise, but a mutual promise in Christ. You are binding yourself before God, not just to another. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. And since you cannot break what God has joined, you simply are stuck with your marriage. Even if both spouses hate this marriage with every fibre of their being, even if the entire world wishes nothing more than that it would not be. It just is. You made it be. Because God's word is existence, and you promised yourself to each other in this world by the power of God. If you don't want that, then you should not do it. That's all there is to it, really.
Jesus' command is that it should not be put asunder, not a declaration that it cannot be. To suggest that the marriage still exists is any meaningful sense after a complete separation and divorce seems tenuous in the extreme. Yes, the couple have broken the promise they made before God, and their needs to be repentance for that. To my mind part of the penance for that is to make a better job of keeping any future promises they make before God. Pretending that the promise is still extant when it has clearly being broken serves no-one, least of all God. The marriage no longer exists in any meaningful sense if the couple no longer try to fulfil the vows they have made.
[ 22. October 2014, 19:17: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
By move on I mean have it acknowledged that one can form a new bond with a new person. Is that bond as indissoluble? I don't know. Perhaps not honestly, but it is still real, it is still meaningful, and I still think God blesses it, though I accept that you will not.
Well, if you do believe in the indissolubility of the first marriage, but permit a second marriage, then I do not know how you argue against polygamy or concubinage.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Re physical vs. spiritual communion, you may just be a better person than I. I crave the physical reality of communion, and watching everyone else take it would be no better than being told that Jesus had come down to earth and was in the next room chatting with people, but I wouldn't be allowed to go there.
I don't know about "better". Mostly I go to mass to say sorry for the past week, listen to some bible texts, praise God, and beg for assistance for the next week. Frankly, physical communion is almost a bit much, really, if I start to think about it (rather than just doing it ritually). It feels a bit like being invited to Buckingham palace and upon spotting the Queen, walking up there, giving her a big hug, kissing her on the mouth and saying "You still got it, babe."
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Jesus' command is that it should not be put asunder, not a declaration that it cannot be.
As an argument in favour of Christian remarriage after divorce, this seems rather lacking.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Jesus' command is that it should not be put asunder, not a declaration that it cannot be.
As an argument in favour of Christian remarriage after divorce, this seems rather lacking.
It's not meant to be an argument in favour of anything, it's meant to dispute the argument that marriage cannot be dissolved. Something has gone drastically and sinfully wrong when marriage is dissolved, but dissolved it is nonetheless. Once that is acknowledged the question becomes about how we should respond to those involved after divorce. I would take the view that they should be given the opportunity, if they desire it, to try again, and live married life as it is meant to be in the hope that they will be able to honour their promises and avoid the mistakes made before.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There are other things in the annulment process that could change, which I would consider unwise but not impossible.
It was announced in September, that the Holy Father had set up a Commission to look into the annulment procedure. Also, just before the synod, Cardinal Angelo Scola proposed a 4 point plan to deal with the question of remarried divorcees. As a sideline, Scola is the man I hoped would get the papacy at last year's conclave. His plan consists of:
- spiritual communion, or “of desire”;
- recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation even without absolution;
- sexual continence while remaining in the civil union;
- the verification of the validity or invalidity of a marriage not only by the diocesan tribunals or the Rota, but also with a more streamlined nonjudicial canonical procedure under the supervision of the local bishop.
I don't know if IngoB could live with this. The first 3 points are available to any Catholic, and Ingo has hinted that some form of reconciliation while acknowldging that a "block" still exists should be possible. I think the stumbling block to some may be the nonjudicial canonical procedure put into the hands of local bishops. Yet I think, when all the dust has settled, and the Commission reports back to the Holy See, Cardinal Scola's suggestions are close to what will happen.
My final position, after a year of mulling this over, is that I agree almost totally with Scola's thoughts. Some marriages are obviously defective from the beginning, for example where people are married young under parental pressure. But where I agree with Cardinal Kasper is that to say that a marriage which lasted 15 years and produced several children never really happened is mostly absurd. It just went wrong, and a penitential admission of this is a more honest way of dealing with it than an annulment, as our Orthodox fellow Christians would tell us.
So the liberals failed to get their victory at the synod. But these issues won't go away, and some form of change will come sooner or later, even if it's only to way of granting annulments.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Second to last paragraph, absolutely. Annulment under such circumstances is typical Roman sleight of hand.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Also, just before the synod, Cardinal Angelo Scola proposed a 4 point plan to deal with the question of remarried divorcees. As a sideline, Scola is the man I hoped would get the papacy at last year's conclave. His plan consists of:
- spiritual communion, or “of desire”;
- recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation even without absolution;
- sexual continence while remaining in the civil union;
- the verification of the validity or invalidity of a marriage not only by the diocesan tribunals or the Rota, but also with a more streamlined nonjudicial canonical procedure under the supervision of the local bishop.
I don't know if IngoB could live with this. The first 3 points are available to any Catholic, and Ingo has hinted that some form of reconciliation while acknowldging that a "block" still exists should be possible. I think the stumbling block to some may be the nonjudicial canonical procedure put into the hands of local bishops. Yet I think, when all the dust has settled, and the Commission reports back to the Holy See, Cardinal Scola's suggestions are close to what will happen.
Well, sure I could live with this. If at all, it appears that I am more "liberal" than ++Scola on some issues... I have not read the article yet, I'm working off your summary above in the following.
His first point is no point at all. That just is already accepted practice. Heck, that's the obligation of binding Catholic discipline somewhat cheekily rephrased as an accommodation. Every Catholic has to go to mass by law, and they are not supposed to just twiddle their thumbs there. So if they don't have physical communion, spiritual communion it is.
His second point is less than I think could be done. Really all he is saying is that these people could have a chat with their priest for spiritual advice. Well, nice. But the sacrament of confession is rather more. My suggestion was to look into whether it is possible to grant a partial absolution of sins, a real sacrament though one imperfectly received. I'm not sure that it is necessary for the priest to absolve of all sins, or none. I right now do not know why he shouldn't be able to absolve of some sins, and thus in our context here of all sins but the remarriage. So I'm more "liberal" than Scola there, I guess.
His third point is weak. Most people remarrying do want to have sex, and as far as marrying goes that's of course perfectly reasonable. And it is already possible to have a secular marriage for good reasons (e.g., upbringing of children), live it "as brother and sister", and have this recognised by the priest (or perhaps bishop, I would have to google to check) so as to return to physical communion. So he's not proposing an innovation to existing law or practice, and as suggestion to most couples in this situation it is not going to fly.
His fourth point is indeed where change could happen. Personally I think making annulments easier it is just going to make the claim that this is Catholic divorce by another name more plausible. But this is a question of governance and discipline, and so the Church can pretty much do what she wants there. It may be terribly imprudent, but that's not the same as heretical. Hence I may have lots of problems with any particular suggestion, but it will not be the kind of problem that would make me reconsider my own membership.
[ 23. October 2014, 10:27: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Personally I think making annulments easier it is just going to make the claim that this is Catholic divorce by another name more plausible.
I agree with you here, in fact I have terrible misgivings about the subject of annulments. Where we might disagree is over what alternatives are possible. A change in procedure allows the Church to get a certain result, without in any way thinking outside the box. When divorce was rare, playboy princes and rich movie stars obtained annulments. They poured their money into Church coffers and bought ease of conscience for their sexually prolific lifestyles. Mere mortals who fell into that trap were shunned and treated as pariahs.
Of course there were always genuine reasons to annul a marriage such as consanguinity, forced marriage, inability or unwillingness to consummate and serious mental illness. But they were rare indeed. Now we hear of annulments for psychological reasons, immaturity, failure to understand the full implications of a lifelong union. But in what way do these invalidate a sacrament? How many youngsters preparing for marriage imagine what it's like to stay up all night with a sick child, and then go to work all day?
By the 1970's, divorce in English speaking countries at least, was reaching pandemic proportions, so the Church started looking for alternatives to simply excluding these sinners. Familiaris Consortio in 1982, was written following the family synod of 1980. Notwithstanding the impassioned pleas of Archbishop Warlock of Liverpool to consider the idea of mercy, Pope St John Paul II told the remarried that they are still Catholics bound by the obligation to attend Mass. That they should involve themselves as much as possible in the life of the Church, but that they can't receive absolution or communion unless they fulfill their obligation to separate from their later partner, or when conditions such as bringing up children make that impossible, live as brother and sister. We are still bound by Familiaris Consortio, and what disappointed me is that there has been general willingness to move on this.
Other Chritian churches, most of which never permitted divorce either, made compromises with the age. The Orthodox Church had in place its penitential remarriages since the first millennium, but I bet it's been used in the last 50 years than in the previous 1,000! The Church of England announced, in 1981, that it still upholds the indissolubility of marriage as an ideal , but recognises that sadly, life isn't always ideal. But for Catholics, the only option is the misuse of the annulment procedure, because the Church has no other mechanism available to it, and won't countenance a rethink.
The indissolubility of marriage has always been upheld by all the Christian Church for the obvious reason that it's a clear command of Christ. But so is plucking out one's eyes if tempted by lust. So is not going to the altar with any anger towards anyone, giving up all property into a commonwealth to help the poor and being perfect as our Father is perfect. Yet Jesus always knew we are incapable of that level of perfection, which is why He died on the cross for our sins. And we must consider the cultural context in which Jesus banned divorce. It was used by His society as just another way to abuse women and keep them down.
To think of mercy following contrition for failure is what Christianity is about. It's what the Orthodox Church and the Church of England and many other ecclesial bodies do in their own way, but Catholics must seek an annulment. If it becomes the case that all that's needed is a visit to one's local bishop, and let's face it, how many are the local bishop likely to refuse once you remaove legal obstacles like the Keeper of the Bond, then annulment will simply be divorce Catholic style. IMO this does far more damage to the indissolubility of marriage than the penitential approach of the Orthodox Church.
Marriages fail due to human sin and weakness. Just as people steal, lie and get angry. They can be forgiven and ammendemnt of life can be sought. Annulment was never inteded for the purposes for which it's now used. Attending Mass while living in continence or refraining from communion indefinately, perhaps for life, is a no hoper for most people. So some rethink on the meaning of mercy and how it applies to real life situations would have been a good thing. Unfortunately it has passed us by at least on this synod.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is just about the most absurd argument I have heard about this... So if you have a contract with a supplier for so and so many tons of sand to be delivered, and the supplier fails to deliver any, then your conclusion is that there never was a contract in the first place since the contractual obligation was not fulfilled.
But this is indeed how contract law works. If we have a contract for services, you under-deliver and I *routinely accept your under-delivery* a court is very unlikely to uphold my later claim against you for breach of contract.
My routine tolerance of your under-performance effectively varies the contract under common law. (Which is why some contracts have a term in anticipating this and attempting to protect against it e.g. "failure of either party to enforce one or more terms of this contract shall not constitute a waiver of rights".)
I guess you're saying that sacramental marriage has one of those failure-to-enforce-does-not-equal-waiver clauses in, while other marriages don't.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Something has gone drastically and sinfully wrong when marriage is dissolved, but dissolved it is nonetheless.
You're begging the question. The question is: when a marriage breaks down irretrievably does the matrimonial bond automatically dissolve? If you conflate "dissolved" with "broken down" then you are right by definition. Otherwise, not.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The indissolubility of marriage has always been upheld by all the Christian Church for the obvious reason that it's a clear command of Christ. But so is plucking out one's eyes if tempted by lust.
False analogy. Marriage has been elevated to a sacrament. We believe God has directly prescribed what is supposed to happen there. This is different from you trying to manage your lust inspired by scripture. Changing marriage is like changing the matter of the host to a Mars bar, or like baptising in the name of creator, redeemer and sanctifier. Instead of following what God told you has to be done in order to receive a sacramental grace, you make stuff up, and expect God to provide the grace regardless. And you think He must, for otherwise He would not be merciful. But that's just not how that works, and assuming that it does puts people into grave spiritual danger.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, according to the RCC, the person in mortal sin first needs the sacrament of reconciliation.
Te sin of Sodom was inhospitality. So maybe the bishops need to confess this mortal sin to gays.
Your comment is stupid on so many levels.
Oh, come on! You can do it! Stiff upper lip, now.
Explain why it is so "stupid" or carry on being irrelevant because you won't engage.
It seems to be you who is not engaging because I asked why my comment was 'stupid' and you haven't answered.
The bishops voted against welcoming gays - so that they means they are not welcome.
According to scripture, the sin of Sodom was not sex nor even rape but refusal to welcome the stranger.
The bishops voted against welcoming the 'stranger'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
