Tuesday, October 14, 2014
A couple of things should be noted from the outset, First, remember that you are only hearing from the Synod scraps and bits and pieces. This echoes what happened at Vatican II. Why would it be any different? This model has worked well for the revolutionary elements in the Church. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Second, it is truly audacious to see these kinds of comments:
This morning we will concentrate our attention and our debates on Chapters 1 and 2, which concern, more particularly, eight well-defined topics. First of all, in the framework of Chapter 1: God’s Plan on Marriage and the Family (1-7), a first topic addresses The Family in the Light of Biblical Gifts (1-3). Thus this permits a rereading if the gifts of Revelation on the family, from Genesis to its perfecting in the teaching of Christ, which offers as the foundation of spousal love irrevocable divine fidelity and participation in God’s creative work.
We are given a second topic on considering The Family in the Documents of the Church (4-7). In the course of the centuries, the Church has not failed to offer her constant teaching on marriage and the family. Closer to us, Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI recalled the fundamental lines of a family pastoral and of the presence of the family in society. Even more recently, His Holiness Pope Francis also addressed the bond between the family and the faith in his Encyclical Lumen Fidei.
Chapter 2: Knowledge and Reception of Holy Scripture and the Documents of the Church on Marriage and the Family, offers us the six following topics. First of all Knowledge of the Bible on the Family (9-10) and that of Documents of the Magisterium (11), which form the counterpart of what is presented in chapter 1 and completes it by combing faithfully the situation within the People of God.
When you look at the arguments posed by the revolutionaries, they pay absolutely no heed to Scripture as understood by the Church, the magisteria of any of the popes mentioned, or the Church's magisterium in general. What you do have is a thoroughly Protestant notion of revelation going on as Scripture texts are re-interpreted according to the whims of the speaker, rather than the Church. It's shades of Gene Robinson. This isn't a new thing:
As also in all his [St. Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16
Notice what is the grounding of all this talk:
From many quarters, however, there has emerged the need to adapt the language of the Church, so that doctrine on the family, life and sexuality is understood correctly: it is necessary to enter into dialogue with the world, looking to the example offered by the Vatican Council, or rather with a critical but sincere openness. If the Church does not listen to the world, the world will not listen to the Church.
Wait a minute. Last time I checked, we've been "dialoguing" with the world for the last five decades. Is the world listening the Church any better? When does the world get to teach the Mother and Teacher? I suggest that it is irrational to think that the world has anything to offer that the Church hasn't been able to glean to this point. What more openness can the Church offer and what has that openness wrought? Good fruit or bad fruit?
Consider this also:
Furthermore, it was underlined that even imperfect situations must be considered with respect: for instance, de facto unions in which couples live together with fidelity and love present elements of sanctification and truth. It is therefore essential to look first and foremost at the positive elements, so that the Synod may infuse with courage and hope even imperfect forms of family, so that their value may be recognised, according to the principle of graduality. It is necessary to truly love families in difficulty.
Notice the classic formulas of ambiguity raising their head again. "Imperfect situations" rather than "sinful" just like "imperfect communion" took over from "outside the Church." "Positive elements" supplant the call for conversion. "Graduality" is the mechanism for holiness rather than penitence. It's a fantastic 1970s glossing over of Church teaching and straight from the revolutionary playbook. Again, if it ain't broke...
Finally, there was this marvel of rhetorical craftmanship:
Like yesterday afternoon, the debate focused on the need to renew the language of the proclamation of the Gospel and the transmission of doctrine: the Church must be more open to dialogue, and must listen more frequently (and not only in exceptional cases) to the experiences of married couples, because their struggles and their failures cannot be ignored; on the other hand, they can be the basis of a real and true theology. Again, in relation to language, some perplexity was expressed at the suggestion – included in the Instrumentum Laboris – to deepen the concept, of biblical inspiration, of the “order of creation” as a possibility of rereading “natural law” more meaningfully: it was added that it is not enough to change the vocabulary if a bridge to effective dialogue with the faithful is not then created. In this sense, the much foretold and widespread need for change may be understood, it was said, as pastoral conversion, to make the proclamation of the Gospel more effective.
The reason this is such a great paragraph is that it is pure modernism. It doesn't even try to hide it. Basing theology on sentiment and experience? Hell, why not just say "vital immanence" and get it over with? What "biblical inspiration" is in all this? One that allows a "re-reading of natural law." And all in the name of dialogue. Not Truth. Not salvation. Just talking.
We'll have more up later today that should bring us entirely up to speed. I do ask for your prayers, bytthe way. My wife's pregnancy has been a difficult one. We are nearing the end, so any prayers offered would be most appreciated.
Posted by Throwback at 6:51 AM