R
R_H_Benson
Guest
How so? Please elaborate.
- Status
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Generalization. Without an annulment, a validly married person who is living in adultery commits a mortal sin by receiving Holy Communion. To argue otherwise is to contradict the words of Our Lord and the 2,000 year Tradition of our Holy Catholic Faith.
“What God hath joined let no man put asunder.”
“What God hath joined let no man put asunder.”
A
AugustTherese
Guest
“The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders” - CCC
I don’t know about you, but I could come up with hundreds of different ways where people could be pressured into ‘committing adultery’.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
It’s still adultery… by your logic, literally any sin, no matter how egregious, could be explained away and excused by “mitigating circumstances”. do you really think it wise to go down that slippery slope when the salvation of souls is at stake?
not to mention, to live in the state of adultery is not decision made in the heat of passion - it is a free and longstanding choice that is made on a day to day basis in contradiction to the will of Almighty God.
not to mention, to live in the state of adultery is not decision made in the heat of passion - it is a free and longstanding choice that is made on a day to day basis in contradiction to the will of Almighty God.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
If you have a problem with the CCC, that is your affair, not mine.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
That should tell you something about Pope Francis.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
Does not excuse sin.
As soon as she is informed, she must abstain.
I disagree.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Is this is covered in the AL? Is not the couple have to go before a priest/bishop to get pastoral advice with an intention to repent and to solve their situation?misstherese:
An abusive husband threatens to kill his wife if she leaves him or seeks an annulment.
A misinformed wife was not aware of the grounds for what makes a marriage sacramental.
Those are just two examples that would allow a divorced and remarried person to receive communion. There are many more real life situations.
Granted if the husband wants to kill the wife for her to be not culpable. Will this not amount to rape or should she allow it to prevail indifinitely?
In both situations mentioned, there will come a time when realisation will be knowledge. Besides they seem to be hypothetical rather than reality. I think AL is more specific which allows divorced remarried couples without annulment to receive Communion after agreement from the priests, which is the heart of the controversy.
God bless.
Last edited:
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Responding to the OP. Amoris Laetitia makes no mention of opening the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion to those who are divorced and civilly remarried. Nor did the two Synods of Bishops say anything definitive on the matter.
The debate that you hear referenced is the ongoing debate being held mostly by the Catholic media, and fueled from time to time by a few bishops or priests who interject their opinion. But the document itself does not make an opening for a change in discipline in this regard.
What the document does do is state that, in line with what was taught in The Joy of the Gospel and by many of the Early Church Fathers, the Church needs to operate as a field hospital meeting people where they are in their very real and messy situations and working to heal the wounds of sin, always upholding and point to the standard of the Gospel. That means getting involved in the lives of those who have been sorely wounded by the sexual revolution, and seeking ways that we can reintegrate our wounded brethren into the life of the Church (note: this does not necessarily mean automatically admitting them to the Sacraments).
The document is also explicit in stating that those who would basically demand that the Church conform Her teachings to their “irregular” situation cannot be fully readmitted to Her life.
I think one of the biggest issues in reading the text is that many/most folks are trying to read it as a manual of Sacramental and Marital Theology. The reality is, it reads much more like the spiritual writings of some of the Desert Fathers and other great spiritual guides, rather than the brilliant theological texts we had become accustomed to under both St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Each has its placed and must be interpreted in light of the other.
Rest assured that, although there are brilliant minds in the Church who have reservations about the document, there are also brilliant minds in the Church who recognize that it can be understood in a fully orthodox manner as well.
The debate that you hear referenced is the ongoing debate being held mostly by the Catholic media, and fueled from time to time by a few bishops or priests who interject their opinion. But the document itself does not make an opening for a change in discipline in this regard.
What the document does do is state that, in line with what was taught in The Joy of the Gospel and by many of the Early Church Fathers, the Church needs to operate as a field hospital meeting people where they are in their very real and messy situations and working to heal the wounds of sin, always upholding and point to the standard of the Gospel. That means getting involved in the lives of those who have been sorely wounded by the sexual revolution, and seeking ways that we can reintegrate our wounded brethren into the life of the Church (note: this does not necessarily mean automatically admitting them to the Sacraments).
The document is also explicit in stating that those who would basically demand that the Church conform Her teachings to their “irregular” situation cannot be fully readmitted to Her life.
I think one of the biggest issues in reading the text is that many/most folks are trying to read it as a manual of Sacramental and Marital Theology. The reality is, it reads much more like the spiritual writings of some of the Desert Fathers and other great spiritual guides, rather than the brilliant theological texts we had become accustomed to under both St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Each has its placed and must be interpreted in light of the other.
Rest assured that, although there are brilliant minds in the Church who have reservations about the document, there are also brilliant minds in the Church who recognize that it can be understood in a fully orthodox manner as well.
- Status