21 October 2015

IMPORTANT: Synod Teaches Definitively on Marriage and the Eucharist

In the waning days of the current Synod, it is good to read at last some clear language on Marriage and the Eucharist.  Praise be to God for clear teaching so relevant to our times.  

I am not publishing the English translation to all of the documents, which would indeed be lengthy, but only those most relevant to the issues the current Synod has been covering for the last year:
 ___________________



ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.

    CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

    CANON II.-If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema.

    CANON V.-If any one saith, that on account of heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or the affected absence of one of the parties, the bond of matrimony may be dissolved; let him be anathema.

    CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

    CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

    CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

    CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.   

    CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

    CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.
 
    CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

    CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated. 

--from the Council, or Synod as it sometimes refers to itself, of Trent 

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Whenever a Catholic blogger posts on marriage or modesty, you can bet that he or she will include a photo of Grace Kelly. Unfortunately, her carefully sculpted screen image did not reflect reality. A close friend of mine, a film student, has studied the stars of Old Hollywood extensively, and she let on one day that Grace Kelly was not what I had thought. After doing research, I realized she was right. Grace Kelly, like many other Old Hollywood stars, was ahead of her time; she felt the ramifications of the Sexual Revolution long before its tenets were embraced by the general public in the latter half of the twentieth century. Learning this, I felt a bit betrayed, to be honest. I guess people were still people before Vatican II, I thought, and as long as people are involved, things are messy!

So, while Grace is not someone we should be holding up as an exemplar of Catholic living, we should, of course, be praying for her soul.

thetimman said...

Of course, you should also be careful before deciding that maybe she had not repented of some of the things you can read about her. Pray for her soul, yes. And don't assume she wasn't a good Catholic before all was said and done.

God must have had some good in mind when he made such a beautiful creature.

Anonymous said...

I never said that she didn't repent; indeed, I hope she did, though there is reason to suspect her lifestyle continued after her marriage. At any rate, she never publicly apologized for the scandal she gave as a Catholic in a position of influence. Great sinners can become great saints, yes, but people like St. Augustine and St. Margaret of Cortona clearly and publicly renounced their ways and sacrificed for their sins. That's why we can safely look to them as role models.

All speculation about Grace's repentance or lack thereof aside, my point was that we need to be careful whom we hold up as role models. It really isn't appropriate to include a photo of Grace (beautiful though she was, and in a modest dress to boot!) in a post on marriage, since she showed little regard for the institution on many occasions. A photo of the recently canonized Louis and Zelie Martin would be a much better, safer choice!








Jane Chantal said...

I still want to know when, and why, the Catholic Church decided that non-Catholic marriages are sufficiently "real" to warrant the annulment process if one or both parties decide they want out. That decision has to have been made, however quietly, at some point. Am not saying it is necessarily wrong to view non-Catholic marriages in this way, but there is something about it that just feels cognitively dissonant to me.

thetimman said...

Because marriage between two baptized persons is a sacrament, and non-Catholics aren't bound by the Church's rules of form on marriage.

Jane Chantal said...

Thanks, Timman. That is helpful. I wonder whether the Church has always considered marriage between baptized Protestants to be sacramental, or if that view was arrived at after some time had passed post-Deformation.