Archbishop Coleridge says synod 65/35 against Communion for the divorced and remarried

[JimG]

Someone recorded something that Jesus said, perhaps a short general statement on marriage that applied in most circumstances. But that does not mean that this short statement which might not have been recorded verbatim included every possible complicated circumstance. There might have been some exceptions in certain circumstances that have not been recorded.

Not all of Jesus’ words are recorded in scripture. But he commissioned the Church to teach what he taught. If he had made exceptions, the apostles and magisterium would certainly have passed those on as well. This has not, after all, been a popular teaching; it’s always been a hard saying, even when Jesus gave it to the Apostles, revoking the previous teaching on divorce.

Nevertheless, it’s not likely that a psychopath could have the proper disposition to contract a marriage

I recall being taught in Catholic high school that one should be very careful about whom one marries. The priest told us that, ‘if you marry the wrong person, you can divorce him civilly, but you can never marry again.’ Of course, decrees of nullity were rather rare in those days.

 

[Rau]

Someone recorded something that Jesus said, perhaps a short general statement on marriage that applied in most circumstances. But that does not mean that this short statement which might not have been recorded verbatim included every possible complicated and extenuating circumstance. There might have been some exceptions in certain circumstances that have not been recorded.

Were that the right way to approach the Scriptures, then they would truly have little value. They would hardly qualify as inspired texts, would they? Be better if they carried a warning to the Church…“use at own risk”.

 

[Rau]

But I did know. And the answer provided is, “The divorced person is still considered validly married and may not remarry in the Church unless and until an annulment is granted.” It still seems rather cruel to me that such a person, especially if their marriage is not annulled, would still remain shackled in marriage to the abusive spouse and would not be able to remarry and have a happy life with a new spouse.

Your dramatic remarks about remaining “shackled” to one’s abusive spouse, suggested that separation and legal divorce was not permitted - whereas it certainly is.

I think that the Catholic Church is mistaken here and that there are always exceptions to the rules, even the ones given by Christ. But we can’t necessarily expect these exceptions which Christ would have allowed to have been recorded in Scripture in all circumstances.

The Church that Jesus founded and gave teaching authority teaches that there are certain moral absolutes. And as your post confirms, this has not stopped a great many people asserting that their (or someone’s) particular circumstances ought to be an exception.

 

[Cider]

I think you need to provide that feedback to your Pastor.

The idea of not staying for the whole Mass and leaving after the Homily is not a good idea.

The whole point of the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Altar, not the homily. The homily is important, but it’s not more important than the Sacrifice.

Even when you do not receive communion, simply being in front of the Blessed Sacrament is very powerful.

I personally believe this practice that your parish does with RCIA is misguided (they have good intentions, but it’s not a good practice)

It is the oldest tradition of the Church going back to Apostolic times. Personally I don’t think it’s misguided at all. What’s misguided is taking it personally. And yes, I’m saying this as an adult convert.

 

[LongingSoul]

From an interview with Vatican Radio with Archbishop Coleridge…

*Archbishop Coleridge says there is “a real danger in this Synod” of speaking about the family in a “highly idealized and somewhat romanticized and disembodied way” that does not relate to the reality of peoples’ lives…

There is a tendency to look back to an imagined ‘golden age of the family’, he says, in which there was a mum, a dad and three or four children, but that is no longer the reality for so many people today and if the Synod doesn’t acknowledge that, it will simply mean the bishops talking to each other in ways that are “incomprehensible to other people”.

“As celibate, male bishops”, the Archbishop says, it is essential “to make sure we are in touch with the realities of peoples’ lives in families – otherwise the Synod will not succeed. He describes the bishops as “antennas” who should be listening and engaging with families “in all their variety and complexity”. Rather than speaking of a crisis of family life, he says “what’s really in crisis is our own, sometimes too narrow, understanding of what marriage and the family is”…

Talking about the challenge of bringing together so many different perspectives being voiced at the Synod, Archbishop Coleridge says “We came to feel that there are issues that need to be addressed, analysis that needs to be done and decisions that need to be taken at the local or regional level.”

While he believes all the Church leaders see themselves as “called by God to safeguard and promote the truth that has been revealed”, he adds the bishops “must be careful about deciding what we can and what we can’t negotiate”….

Discussing the risks of using “church speak” which fails to communicate the Church’s message to contemporary audiences, Archbishop Coleridge says just as the Second Vatican Council was “a language event” that spoke to people in a new way, so this Synod must find “new, fresh, illuminating ways” of speaking to people today…… *

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/10/13/archbishop_coleridge_on_challenges_facing_synod_on_family/1178905

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

But we can’t necessarily expect these exceptions which Christ would have allowed to have been recorded in Scripture in all circumstances.

At least you are starting to see the flaws with Sola Scriptura. Can you pass this info around to your peers for us?