THE SYNOD 2015

I believe the reason that this forum is successful is because of Padraig's policy of allowing relatively free discussion of matters which are controversial. The Synod is a topic which has highlighted strongly opposing views within the Catholic community. I believe it is very important for this topic to be discussed openly. This inevitably leads to some contributors acting in a less than charitable way but it can also shows up the lack of fairness or logic in some of the 'arguments' being used. This can all be very helpful in letting the undecided to discern where truth lies.

I have previously supported BH in his posts. I find he is able to put in writing thoughts which are going through my head but which I find difficult to express. I would very much like the 'traditionalist' members of the forum to stop posting their anti Pope Francis (and anti Kasper) posts but when they do post them, I hope BH and others will continue to challenge them even if things can get a bit noisy.

 

You’re right this time and I apologise. I have just edited my last comment.

 

Why don't we just trust God to drive His synod?? What good is it for us to rant and rave about what none of us know what the Holy Spirit has in plan for the synod? It seems that a few on MOG think that all their wisdom and knowledge of the faith will make the synod somehow better. What has any of the 'wisdom' on this thread done to enlighten the mind of the Holy Spirit that he did not think of? I rather think our God is disappointed that we are not acting in good faith that he will have the Pope lead in the light of the Holy Spirit. Pray, pray, pray.

 

Blue, I am sure you are very familiar with the Kasper proposal, but since you ask for examples of what we disagree with, in a nutshell here it is straight from the horse's mouth:



In this video Cardinal Kasper declares what he is pushing for point blank. The main points are:
1.) In cases where the first marriage is valid.
2.) Then one spouse leaves the other to cohabit with another person sexually and get civilly remarried without an annulment.
3.) These people should be able to receive Holy Communion.

This goes against the history of what the Church has always believed.
Cardinal Kasper calls this merciful. The Church has another name for it: Adultery.

We can quibble over whether this is heresy or not, so I won't call it that. I will call it what it is: Evil. It is not merciful to tell someone a sin they are committing is not a sin. There is no way the Church missed this revelation for it's entire history and people only now are mature enough to realize adultery isn't a sin.

 

The controversial Cardinal Danneels (From Belgium) listed as second in importance out of 45 delegates personally chosen by Pope Francis to participate in the upcoming Synod was also part of what they call "a Mafia Club" opposed to Pope Benedict XVI, read more :

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...ls-part-of-mafia-club-opposed-to-benedict-xvi

The Family is a little Church :



Aviso

 

Watch the Pope...

 

All good, thank you Basto.

I think its a bit like what Pope Francis said recently about real families...its when they stop "fighting" and talking to each other that things have really taken a turn for the worse.

 

Thanks P. I hadn't come across that particular interview, I note it was 2nd Oct 2014 so just before the first Synod.

I would like to discuss this one but also the one (in two parts) with Arroyo which is considerably longer and provides much more contextual information as well.

Part1:


Part2:


Praetorian I listened very closely to your clip above...but do you realize he doesn't, here at least, actually say what you stated above?

If we are to have any chance of rationally discussing something we surely have to discern between what comes from our pre-existing emotion and fears (or attachments) and what the speaker was actually communicating or trying to communicate?

It seems Card Kasper didn't mention Holy Communion at all in your clip.

If we are all heated up with our pre-existing concerns (which may or may not be true) we won't understand the reasonable points that the man is actually trying to make in the set piece in question.

So what was he really trying to communicate in your video clip?

It is very clear to me that he is drawing on Vatican2 principles that explain how Protestant Churches, which do not have a full objective relationship with Christ, nevertheless contain many elements of the true Catholic Church and are therefore not "of the devil" as we once tended to believe. That is why Ecumenism ("accompanyment" and collaboration if you will) is encouraged now.

Card Kasper, in your clip, is first and primarily asking us to consider that there are still many elements of goodness (both marital and family) worthy of praise and support in remarried couples whose first, sacramental marriage is a shipwreck to which there can be no return.
eg exclusivity, permanent commitment, openness to life, faith, prayer life.

Yes it is objectively an imperfect marriage and can never be sacramental (unless via an Annulment which he is not talking about)...just as a Protestant Church can never be as objectively "perfect" or as "full" as the Catholic Church.

Finally he notes that even in its imperfection (a "plank" rather than a "ship") an imperfect Church (or 2nd sexual relationship) can still be moving towards Christ in those elements of goodness remaining. Possessing an objectively "perfect" ship doesn't guarantee perfect spiritual progress either.

Now I find that analogy quite reasonable as a starting point, a question to be discussed.
He is calling us to critique our "all or nothing" pre-existing attitude to EVERY 2nd marriage.
There can be many elements of goodness and grace both objectively and subjectively in a 2nd marriage.
Just as is the case in Protestant Churches and even non Christian religions.

I accept that if we have difficulties with the shift in official attitude to other religions at Vatican2 then we certainly will find Card Kasper's principles above very unpalatable indeed.

That is because the principles behind truly assessing both situations of objective imperfection/fullness seem to me to be exactly the same. If we managed to handle the transition to recognizing the partial objective goodness in other Churches it would seem consistent to attempt to see 2nd marriages in the same way.

Sure, many 2nd marriages are of the devil, just as some religions are.
But some, even in their imperfection, are also of God just like Protestants.

I personally don't have a problem with this gradated view (as opposed to a more digital "all or nothing" approach) of the status of 2nd marriages before God.

 

Blue, I don't mind talking to you, but I am not a researcher, nor am I interested communicating via footnote. I understand that is your style and there is nothing wrong with it. It certainly is something important that must be done, but it is not my desire nor do I have time for it. I as everyone else in the world turn to reliable news sources for their information. They do not cite footnotes.

It is well-known that Cardinal Kaspar is advocating Communion for the divorced and remarried, surely you know this. If you will not accede to that basic point we cannot discuss. That is what the whole issue is about. In fact he instituted this policy in his diocese in the 90's and it forced the CDF to send a missive worldwide to all bishops telling them to desist if they were practicing this in any of their respective diocese.

I realize the video I posted did not include everything Cardinal Kaspar is putting forth. I tried to find a short succinct video that encompassed much of Cardinal Kaspar's ideas in 3 minutes, as most people will not watch long videos when posted. I don't read his books and while finding footnoted cites about his work, or anything for that matter, is possible but extremely difficult. Even serious news sites don't operate this way. I get my information from reputable news sources not "Bob's blog". It is not footnoted. If we are going to need to post with that degree of depth to have a conversation then I am not your man. I will not debate the meaning of the word "is" as President Clinton is infamous for saying.

I don' think the position exists anymore, but you would make an excellent devils advocate at a canonization hearing. That is not what a public internet forum is about though.

 

Mac i am a Roman Catholic from Belfast believe me when i tell you when it comes to knowing about the reality of living as a Roman Catholic i know only too well. I have lost not only members of my own family but also some very close friends, a couple of whom have had horrible deaths because they were Roman Catholic. Please believe me when i tell you that i do not want my past to become you or your families future, some of the good friends i have lost has been because of in fighting and division within the Our Own Catholic Community and ended up shooting each other over stupid talk and selected listening. There's an old Belfast saying that goes "Talks cheap but it takes money to buy a drink" when translated
from Belfastish lol means you might have to back up your words with action. What i have learned is if your words are negative then are your actions going to be negative as well, the second thing i learned was know who your real Enemies are before you commit your troops or else you will end up chasing ghosts. What i mean by this is how do we know who are the real enemies of the Church are until they reveal themselves, and we will not know this until the end of the Synod and everyone states their own case and shows their hand. We need to hold our fire and hold our lines until we see the the whites of their eyes only then will you know who to fire at. I do feel Kasper is being used as a smokescreen for cover by worse offending Cardinals just look at the American Church alone there has been over two and a half Billion Dollars syphoned through the Vatican Bank to pay FAMILIES for the abuse caused to American Children not one Cardinal or Bishop has been held to account for this Cover Up. This Synod was supposed to be about Families and why there are so few of them coming back to the Church, the last thing these Cardinals & Bishops want is their past actions and cover ups exposed for the Evil it is. So some of the Cardinals and Bishops have threw the Gossip Bombs of Homosexuality & Heresy so that these dominate the Synod and not the Welfare of Our Children. You know very well that Our Lady told St Lucia the Final Battle would be about a Marriage and the Family from what i can see this Synod will neither debate or even mention Our Families and why Families have deserted the Church by the Million. I believe the same as you that certain members of the Hierarchy of the Church have Questions to answer not just one Cardinal we need to hold fire until we know who we are shooting at and who the real enemy are. So to quote Corporal Jones out of Dads Army "Don't Panic Don't Panic" you will soon know who your enemy are.

 

? View attachment 3487

 

Do you think that the Cardinal Kasper’s proposal (let’s call it just that) could be the “errors” of Russia warned in the message of Fatima? As far as I know – please correct me if I’m wrong – this Kasper’s solution is similar to what happens in some non-Catholic Eastern Churches. That’s what I read or heard in a few places but I can't confirm the accuracy of that information. Also, I really don’t know if that’s the case of the Russian Orthodox Church.

We always knew that the “dogma of the faith” has a central function in the secret of Fatima and, now, we know as well that the “confrontation” is about the holiness of the family and marriage...

I accept that cardinal Kasper could have been influenced by some Eastern Churches while he had strong links with them as President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

 

Basto I think in the light of the above interviews it is pretty clear this is not a wholly fair description.

In Feb 2014 Pope Francis invited Card Kasper to kick off discussion at the Synod with a focusing "question" pertinent to the difficult situation of remarried Catholics in the Church.

So when Arreyo said C. Kasper said "my proposal is clearly what the Pope wants" - the Cardinal strongly disagreed.
He restated his position as follows:

"No...of course I spoke with the Pope beforehand...its an important issue for the Cardinals and he was in favour to open the debate but not the certain proposal....to touch the problems..."

"I leave it open, I do not want to anticipate the decision of the Synod and the Holy Father.
Therefore it is not a firm proposal, they are questions and I get a lot of agreements and a lot of critiques."


So by "proposal" the Cardinal (whose English is not perfect) is primarily raising a debate about various problems wrt the remarried. He is not pushing bishops to accept his own pet solution, simply to get a discussion going .

Neither is he committed to it himself. He repeated numerous times in the above video that he is a man of the Church...if the Pope or other bishops go in a different direction he will be totally accepting of that. Why would he not be...he is there to get a focused discussion going, that is his only agenda and it is what he was asked to do. This is far removed from the obstinacy of a possible heretic from what I can see.

Arroyo asked him: "you would like to see your proposal adopted...?"

Cardinal Kasper responded:
"I put the question as the Pope wanted, and I do not anticipate the decision of the Synod and of the Holy Father. Changes are desirable but it is his decision. I will accept his decision."

Sure, he has his own pet solution, but his role at the Synod is only to ginger the discussion at Pope Francis's behest. And Pope Francis, while obviously not supporting Card Kasper's own pet approach, is very supporting of him raising the question, getting the discussion going. That is what he asked him to do and what he continues to do.

The discussion may eventually lead to no new changes in next month's Synod ... or the majority may feel he is going too far with his own solution and propose a variation. And the Pope, listening to them all, will make his own final decisions - if any. (Much has already been done by him anyhow).

In short the Synod is not being dragooned to accepting any such "Kasper Proposal".
They have been invited, at Pope Francis's behest, to debate various issues wrt remarried Catholics by discussing "Kasper's Opening Questions".

 

I've been thinking the same thing about moving these personal back and forth discussions to private messages. There's a reason boys who want to fight say, "Let's take this outside!" They don't want to mess up mom's living room...

 

I don't think Cardinal Kasper's proposal is directly the “Errors of Russia”, though it is definitely an outgrowth of it. In my humble opinion the “Errors of Russia” are Atheism, Secular Humanism, Materialism, etc. Along with those ideas come widespread use of contraception, abortion, decline in marriage, high divorce rates etc. It is clear that these errors have spread around the western world especially since 1960 when the third secret of Fatima was not made public.

Cardinal Kasper's solution is similar to what the Orthodox churches do. They allow one or two “extra” relationships if the marriage fails. The orthodox do not call these marriages though. They too understand that a person can only be married once. Interestingly none of the Eastern Churches have congratulated Cardinal Kasper for adopting their ideas. Even the Orthodox know there is a compromise with the world in putting such an idea into practice. It is not something they are happy about having as part of their Church, but something they permit. I probably know as much about it as you do.

I don't know if this synod will be where an attempt to change the “dogma of the faith” happens or not. It could very well be something that happens later. This might just be an event that ignites the idea of changing it. We are really into speculation at this point, so I won't go farther.

 

Mac, I know you will find this teaching difficult to accept but it is traditional and comes straight from Aquinas.
It is a prudential judgement whether the Church does or does not impose it's values on the wider political society for the sake of the common good. If this theological principle held true in times of Christendom (in a close knit identification of Church and Nation) ... how much more so today in Nations of mixed religions and secularism?

To accept your assumed view would make us exactly like radical Muslims who want to impose their Shariah religious laws into the politics of Christian Nations even in which they are a very small but vocal minority.

Mixed societies of today cannot hold together under such draconian frameworks.
For Christians to impose their religious law and difficult ethical values onto large populations who simply aren't ethically mature or believing enough is a recipe for disaster and there are less in your face ways of ethically maturing/leavening a post Christian majority population before doing so.

You are, I think, essentially proposing we have a Christian duty to impose Canon Law/ethics on secular society just like Muslim extremists do with Shariah Law. That simply is not a Catholic teaching.

That Cardinal may or may not have made a bad prudential decision. But there is nothing evil in him believing it is a prudential decision that can be validly weighed up.

I am obviously only referring to his influential letters to Govt leaders on decriminalization issues.

 

If this is the level of animosity now, what will it be during the Synod? There is wisdom in stepping away from the forum until after the Synod. At that point arguing over what might happen will be replaced by something much more urgent: defending orthodoxy. Heterodox progressives will think they have the upper hand and by all appearances they will. But their time will be short.

For those defending the Faith and promoting orthodoxy, you should seriously consider taking a break until after the Synod.

See you then.

 

I have actually been praying a lot today on this thread and my postings. I am not happy with them in general. I haven't changed any of my beliefs, but I find myself getting far too worked up and angry. Saying things I wish I had not. I think we can see this in many people on this thread. I cannot bring myself to leave the forum entirely, but I am going to take a step back and "not post in anger", which happened several times. It stole my peace and the peace of others as can be seen from Kathy K and Fatima who posted earlier. I am sorry to the two of you and anyone else I upset.

There are very important issues here and that is why we are all so agitated. Giving up the discussion is not the answer, however, infighting is not either. It is just what the devil wants us to be doing. It wins no one over to our point of view and sows discord. Our Lady and Our Lord would not want us to present their positions with anger. We must have trust all will work out. God doesn't need us to do anything for Him, He allows us to participate in His plans. Let us do it with a smile and a humble disposition, now a scowl and chest full of pride.

 

I will try to take a break from the forum also then. [not as easy as youd think]Leave you with some wise words from Gandalf...

 

Mac, I don't know why you feel the need to do this but as it will be duller without your contributions I will try and do the same in solidarity with you until you return.

A small prediction for you - Cardinal Kasper 's pet proposal re Communion for the remarried won' t happen, and he will be very happy with that outcome, and he will say so publicly because all he ever wanted was to raise a discussion and have the Synod reach consensus on some change... even if it isn't his pet one which is just too far ahead of where most of us are.

All will be well and all manners of things will be well.
Farewell Frodo