Posted on 06/25/2014 6:47:21 PM PDT by scouter
It is always assumed by the Church that Couples are truly, or "validly" married. The burden of proof is on anyone who says that they are not...
One thing that would help would be if all of us realized that receiving communion is not obligatory at Mass...
Lot's of good stuff in this interview.
(Excerpt) Read more at wordonfire.org ...
I have to wonder whether this Synod would be considered part of the Ordinary Magisterium.
I don't think I'm falling into error, even based on EWTN's definition. A synod does not fall into the definition. 1) It is not an ecumenical council; 2) it is not an ex cathedra statement of the pope; and 3) it could conceivably teach something at odds with the "perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world", and therefore would not form part of the ordinary magisterium.
I did not mean to imply that that the Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible. Rather, I mean that synods do not necessarily form part of the ordinary magisterium any more than a bishops' conference does. The proof is in the pudding. If it agrees with the perennial teaching of the bishops in union with the pope, then it is infallible. If it does not agree, then it is not infallible.
And in any case, there is no guarantee that the Holy Spirit will prevent them from making a really bad decision on how to handle annulments.
That seems backwards thinking to me. Either a synod should be infallible or not. Either it is protected by the Holy Spirit or it is not. If it should be and the teachings contradict prior teaching, then we have a serious problem on our hands. In my mind, that would just be more of the same ala Vatican II.
I think that's because you believe synods, by definition, are part of the ordinary magisterium. I do not, especially using the definition of the ordinary magisterium you posted: Ordinary Magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world. I believe they are part of the ordinary magisterium when they teach something that is "the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him."
I believe synods can deviate from that, because they do not consist of all the bishops. No one would argue, for example, that the Synods of Baltimore were infallible by nature. The fact that they did not teach anything in conflict with the ordinary magisterium does not mean that they could not have done so. It only means that we're fortunate that they did not.
I could be wrong, and I will look into it further. But that's why I'm concerned about what's going to come out of the upcoming synods. And again... even if they are infallible, that doesn't mean that every disciplinary decision that comes out of them is going to be a good idea. That's why I pray every day that these upcoming synods will be faithful, clear, and effective in bringing souls to Christ.
I am actually not sure about Synods (and I am also trying look into it). I think it is important to know where they fit in the Magisterium. They are either part of the OM or they are not. We can’t decide that something is not part of the OM when the results are not to our liking (i.e. contradict prior teaching). If a Synod is part of the OM and we get contradictory teachings (not discipline)?
“Houston, we have a problem.”
The part in bold I absolutely agree with. The underlined part I disagree with. If something contradicts a prior teaching of the ordinary magisterium (as opposed to being a further explication of it), then it is a situation where, as you say, "Houston, we have a problem", and is, by definition, wrong.
The current "Quote of the Week" I have posted on my cube at work is from Flannery O'Connor: The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
I think we actually agree. I was using “contradicting prior teaching” as an example.
I am going to research, though, the role of the synod in the magisterium of the Church. It is an important question.
When we went to Pre-Cana, it was a rather eye opening experience. The priest we were talking to said we had to go to a weekend retreat, and that we would see why it was required then.
Well we did. There were a lot of couples who hadn’t even talked about the most basic things about marriage (for instance, where the new couple would live after the marriage).
The old priest said he had no concerns about us for a variety of reasons. He also said he enjoyed talking to a couple who actually understood what marriage was, and that it wasn’t about the party.
That is why things are so messed up. To many people don’t realize that love is a choice, marriage is for keeps, and that it won’t be all wine and crumpets.
Same here.
I agree people have never even talked about how many kids, how to discipline, what their life goals are, where they want to live. etc. So much is feelings and emotions. Marriage is a job. It's a wonderful job, but it requires work and commitment. I used that passage in my wedding which I am sure a lot of you might have. "Love is patient, Love is kind...."
But that is love not marriage. So I used “Do not press me to go back and abandon you! Wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people and your God, my God. Where you die I will die, and there be buried. May the LORD do thus to me, and more, if even death separates me from you!” This is marriage!
Three things that I learned about marriage along the way. The first one was so wonderfully simple:
If you get upset when someone takes one of your french fries you are not ready for marriage. If you get upset when someone takes all of your french fries you are not ready for children.
The second thing is do NOT live with someone before marriage, ever. Many people think they will learn all they need to know about a person by living with them before marrying them. This is false, all that comes out of this is sex and a financial dependence upon each other, such as roommates. Not a good way to start a marriage. It really is better to learn the habits of the person after you have made the Sacrament. It's a wonderful time.
Thirdly, this is an awesome question to ask couples before they get married. "If you, your spouse and your child are in a boat and they fall out you can only save one. Who do you save? The correct answer is your spouse. As special as a child is, You can have another one together. The loss of a child would be devastating without your other half.
My 2 bits.
I'm interested in what you think.
http://www.netplaces.com/catholicism-guide/the-magisterium/ordinary-magisterium.htm
This right here sounds wrong already. It's stating that the OM = noninfallible (or better stated as fallible...hate those double negatives!). This source doesn't seem to be a reliable source....is it even Catholic?
This is interesting. It is part of a Q & A about the JPII Catechism:
The Catechism is part of the Church’s official teaching in the sense that it was suggested by a Synod of Bishops, requested by the Holy Father, prepared and revised by bishops and promulgated by the Holy Father as part of his ordinary Magisterium.
Intellectually, I know you're right that there are many who marry without having ever talked together about the big stuff, but in my gut, it's hard for me to understand.
It isn't how my wife and I went about things.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.