Back during Lent in 2010 I did a series looking at Cardinal Newman’s theory regarding the Development of Doctrine:
Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, among his many other services to the Church, clarified the concept of development of doctrine as opposed to corruptions of doctrine that occasionally fasten on the Church and are shed off by the Church over time.
6. Conservative Action upon Its Past
I posited that Newman’s seven tests could be used to look at various teachings of the Church to see if a particular teaching was a development of doctrine or a corruption that had crept temporarily into the Church. Now Father Juan R. Velez has taken the seven tests and applied them to the giving of communion to people divorced and remarried whose first marriages have not been annulled by the Church:
Newman’s seven tests are as follows:
1. The Role of Mary is not changed; there is preservation of the type or identity.
The question of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics
Go here to read the rest at The Catholic World Report. One of the many distressing aspects of the Synod was the fact that the arguments made often had little reliance on Catholic teaching and thought that has been built up over 2000 years. It is little surprise that the proponents of change wished to ignore the accumulated wisdom of 2000 years as it is almost entirely negative to what they were attempting. It was very surprising that their opponents in most cases did not come to the Synod better armed intellectually from the vast corpus of Catholic teaching and thought at their disposal. I very much hope that some of them read the post of Father Velez.
“It should also be mentioned that in the Church’s history there have been doctrinal developments in matters regarding marriage. A notable one is the doctrine on the canonical form of marriage. The Council of Trent mandated that a sacramental marriage should have as witness a qualified representative of the Church, normally the pastor of the parish church.”
That was a matter of legislation, not doctrine. The only doctrinal statement was to declare clandestine marriages valid, when not rendered invalid by Church legislation.
The decree takes its name from its first word, Tametsi (Although): “Although it is not to be doubted, that clandestine marriages, made with the free consent of the contracting parties, are valid and true marriages, so long as the Church has not rendered them invalid; and consequently, that those persons are justly to be condemned, as the holy Synod doth condemn them with anathema, who deny that such marriages are true and valid;”
It then goes on to provide for the future (but only in those places where the decree is promulgated) that “Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them..”
The requirement of canonical form could be abolished tomorrow, without involving any change of doctrine. I believe it would be a very bad idea, but that is by the by.
What does it matter how well prepared those who wish to preserve Biblical marriage come prepared to the 2nd part of the Synod if the final report includes paragraphs supporting those who do not want to maintain Biblical marriage–with Pope Francis’ blessing? As you can tell, I am completely disgusted with the sham process that was the first Synod. 🙁
I don’t anyone to think that we should simply throw in the towel because of the evil, manipulative games taking place at high levels, I am just disgusted with those games. However, my encouragement is to “never, never, never give up!”
First, thank you F. Baron, as always for the breath of fresh air.
Secondly, are we not including in the option the basic development alternatives that might arise in the process of declaring nullity?
Genesis 2: “And the rib which the Lord took from the man, He made into a woman, and brought her to him. Then the man said, “She is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, for from man she has been taken.” For this reason a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh.” But only through the action of God.
There cannot be a civil marriage without the action of God.
.
The Catholic Church must tolerate the divorced and remarried. The divorced and remarried have excluded God. The Catholic Church cannot celebrate their condition.
.
The Priest in Confession acts only in the person of Christ, in persona Christi, when the priest says the Absolution. To lay the responsibility for the determination of nullity on one person, the priest, is akin to a capital one crime court with no jury. The Church in her wisdom has created a tribunal of (three) canonists to determine the validity and the application of the Pauline Privilege to married and divorced people. Pope Francis is proposing to remove the three canonists and replace them with one priest in the confessional. A judicial fact is predicated on the testimony of two or more witnesses. Jesus said to test everything.
Don’t worry yourselves folks. Cardinal Dolan in his interview with Raymond Arroyo doesn’t know “what happened” and is not aware of any of this. Everything is just great in the Holy Roman Church. Kind of like our president. What?
This is awesome, Mr. McClarey. Thank you for posting it. 😀
[…] as Married – RCæli . . .CDF Is Even More Correct than People Realize – Dr. Ed Peters Crd. Newman’s Theory of Development of Doctrine – D.R. McClarey JD Why Did Synod Fail to Address Cohabitation? – Rick Fitzgibbons MD […]
Thank you Barbara! Cardinal Newman has been one of my mentors in looking at the history of the Church.