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

[_Abyssinia]

I think if Communion were changed to allow Communion for the divorced and remarried, that could create division and potentially even schism among the Clergy, because there will probably be Clergy who want to have no involvement in aiding a pathway to Communion for the divorced and remarried if they have no intention of living as brother and sister. Think of all the Clergy, the Priests, Bishops etc. that have spoken out in opposition. Would they want to possibly partake in a process that would lead to Communion being given to the divorced and remarried who are not living as brother and sister with their spouse? For example, look at what Fr Brian W. Harrison says:

Finally, the inclusion of sacramental confession in the “penitential process” proposed by revisionists will require from priests a sacrilegious abuse of this sacrament. Confessors will be expected to absolve some Catholics who confess being in a sexual relationship with someone other than their true husband or wife, but without any purpose of amendment. I feel I should conclude this paper by going on record as affirming that I myself, with the help of God, will never profane the Sacrament of Penance and violate my own conscience by giving a sacrilegious absolution to someone in that situation, no matter what higher authority in the Church might tell me to do so. May God preserve His Church from the calamity of endorsing Cardinal Kasper’s iniquitous proposal.

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_harrison_diminished-imputability.html

Would the Church ask a Priest like Fr Brian W. Harrison to partake in something he sees as “sacrilegious abuse of the sacrament” and any others that may feel similar?

 

[pnewton]

Would the Church ask a Priest like Fr Brian W. Harrison to partake in something he sees as “sacrilegious abuse of the sacrament” and any others that may feel similar?

No, but I really do not think there is any chance of such a scenario really coming to fruition.

 

[HeartnSoulMan]

Mystically for about the last 50 to 100 years we have been witness to many prophecies fulfilled dealing with the second coming of Christ. One of these has been the separation of the sheep and the goats. This has been accomplished through many both public and sublime ways. Social issues like abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage and many other have each divided us further along moral lines.

The lines have been drawn and each issue divides us further taking the less committed to the will of God over to the side they really live on.

God from all time chose Holiness and His infinite nature from all eternity conformed to infinite holiness. He tested the angels and one third failed we are involved in that same test. The test is will we chose of our own free will to live holiness and serve love as God does.

The parameters are simply will we choose to follow God’s Will down that rough and narrow path to Eternal life; or will we choose to serve our own will and personal agenda which is what most people are taught is normal. Look out for number one.

In school they begin conditioning us to start choosing our future career choices in elementary school and even if it is a Catholic elementary or high school no one will ever ask what do you think God has willed for you as a vocation as a career as anything,

We should begin our education being taught to always want and to be prepared to do God’s Will in our lives, We need to seek, the will of God in all we do. It is not what is best for our career but what is best for our soul.

People begin dating not seeking the potential soul mate God had will from all eternity we seek the girl who attracts our human nature. Is it a wonder we are in a mess throughout the earth.

Divine providence is in front of our eyes if we know how to look. God does not leave us on our own to chose but brings His Will to us if we wait for His timing. If we are committed to accomplish His Will etc

 

[LongingSoul]

I think if Communion were changed to allow Communion for the divorced and remarried, that could create division and potentially even schism among the Clergy, because there will probably be Clergy who want to have no involvement in aiding a pathway to Communion for the divorced and remarried if they have no intention of living as brother and sister. Think of all the Clergy, the Priests, Bishops etc. that have spoken out in opposition. Would they want to possibly partake in a process that would lead to Communion being given to the divorced and remarried who are not living as brother and sister with their spouse? For example, look at what Fr Brian W. Harrison says:

Finally, the inclusion of sacramental confession in the “penitential process” proposed by revisionists will require from priests a sacrilegious abuse of this sacrament. Confessors will be expected to absolve some Catholics who confess being in a sexual relationship with someone other than their true husband or wife, but without any purpose of amendment. I feel I should conclude this paper by going on record as affirming that I myself, with the help of God, will never profane the Sacrament of Penance and violate my own conscience by giving a sacrilegious absolution to someone in that situation, no matter what higher authority in the Church might tell me to do so. May God preserve His Church from the calamity of endorsing Cardinal Kasper’s iniquitous proposal.

But Priests surely wouldn’t object to something of the general essence of a ‘penitential path’ that would bring people in these situations into a closer relationship with the very people who have the charism of imparting Gods forgiveness of sin?! At the moment people aren’t even permitted to Reconciliation until they have achieved an enormous feat which is hard for even completely faithful and devout Catholics. It is sort of like asking you to restore to right health someone who you ran over and paralyzed while drunk driving… before being entitled to absolution.

If the hierarchical Church calls for a new way to support the institution of marriage and ultimately promote the indissolubility of marriage… it is right and proper that all Priests and Bishops ‘think with the Church’. It’s a habit that is very Ignatian.

It would be a real travesty if going forward we are plagued with the same obstinence that plagued Vatican II. There’s a lot of criticism that the ‘liberals’ distorted the reforms of Vatican II but in reality there was a section of the Church that subtly washed their hands of them for the most part and set about creating their own version of things. How wonderful would the reforms have turned out if they had been tempered with both liberal and conservative (name removed by moderator)ut equally! That’s the hope of our very Ignatian pontiff I imagine!

“What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.”
― Ignatius of Loyola

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

That 35 bishops in the Church are completely wrong about not only the sacrament of marriage but of the source and summit of our faith is one of the scariest things I have ever considered…

 

[phil19034]

Like I said, “kicked out” is more the feeling that we get. Even parishioners there that know us, can see the hurt on our faces as we leave. It is a very real feeling. Even though the intentions for it are good, if you read most missals, they show after the Liturgy of the Word, that candidates and catehumens are dismissed.

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)

 

[phil19034]

That 35 bishops in the Church are completely wrong about not only the sacrament of marriage but of the source and summit of our faith is one of the scariest things I have ever considered…

I bet they are also all in dioceses or nations where the weekly mass attendance rate is much lower than 25%

I read somewhere in Quebec Province (not sure which diocese or diocese) the Mass attendance rate is something like 9% or 11%

 

[Brendan]

But Priests surely wouldn’t object to something of the general essence of a ‘penitential path’ that would bring people in these situations into a closer relationship with the very people who have the charism of imparting Gods forgiveness of sin?! At the moment people aren’t even permitted to Reconciliation until they have achieved an enormous feat which is hard for even completely faithful and devout Catholics.

The penitential path is certainly a good thing. And it is certainly rooted in early Christian practice.

The point to the penitential path is that it brings them to that ‘enormous feat’ that allows them to achieve that Reconciliation and the forgiveness of their sin.

For the proposals for the penitential paths that I have seen do not involve the penitents participating in the Eucharist until that ‘enormous feat’ has been accomplished.

Is that your understanding as well?

How wonderful would the reforms have turned out if they had been tempered with both liberal and conservative (name removed by moderator)ut equally! That’s the hope of our very Ignatian pontiff I imagine!

And how does that differ from how the past two Popes have viewed the reforms? Since they were both present, I highly doubt that either one of them lacked an understanding on what the reforms were supposed to be.

 

[phil19034]

Mystically for about the last 50 to 100 years we have been witness to many prophecies fulfilled dealing with the second coming of Christ. One of these has been the separation of the sheep and the goats. This has been accomplished through many both public and sublime ways. Social issues like abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage and many other have each divided us further along moral lines.

The lines have been drawn and each issue divides us further taking the less committed to the will of God over to the side they really live on.

God from all time chose Holiness and His infinite nature from all eternity conformed to infinite holiness. He tested the angels and one third failed we are involved in that same test. The test is will we chose of our own free will to live holiness and serve love as God does.

The parameters are simply will we choose to follow God’s Will down that rough and narrow path to Eternal life; or will we choose to serve our own will and personal agenda which is what most people are taught is normal. Look out for number one.

In school they begin conditioning us to start choosing our future career choices in elementary school and even if it is a Catholic elementary or high school no one will ever ask what do you think God has willed for you as a vocation as a career as anything,

We should begin our education being taught to always want and to be prepared to do God’s Will in our lives, We need to seek, the will of God in all we do. It is not what is best for our career but what is best for our soul.

People begin dating not seeking the potential soul mate God had will from all eternity we seek the girl who attracts our human nature. Is it a wonder we are in a mess throughout the earth.

Divine providence is in front of our eyes if we know how to look. God does not leave us on our own to chose but brings His Will to us if we wait for His timing. If we are committed to accomplish His Will etc

We know not the hour of when the World will end.

Every generation sees signs that their time is the end times. The Book of Revelation refers to the Past, Present & Future all at the same time.

Meaning, you will always see signs that the end is coming. God gives us these signs so we take heed.

It’s also important to note that the Church is growing in Africa and Asia. I heard stats just recently that suggest that by 2050, there will be more Catholics in Africa & Asia than anywhere else. And they all have a strong love for the Faith because Christians run counter to their societies. They do not wish to assimilate into their country’s culture. They want their country to adopt Christ.

In Africa and Asia, the faith is growing like it did during the persecutions during the Roman Empire.

In regards to what is happening in the West, I suggest this book from the Ignatius Press: American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America by Russell Shaw

It doesn’t really focus too much on Europe, which had different issues, but it shows how the Catholic Church in America started setting the stage for our current situation in the mid 19th century and early to mid 20th century.

amzn.to/1NvZSDq

God Bless

 

[LongingSoul]

The penitential path is certainly a good thing. And it is certainly rooted in early Christian practice.

The point to the penitential path is that it brings them to that ‘enormous feat’ that allows them to achieve that Reconciliation and the forgiveness of their sin.

For the proposals for the penitential paths that I have seen do not involve the penitents participating in the Eucharist until that ‘enormous feat’ has been accomplished.

Is that your understanding as well?

No I don’t think it is a case of the Pope having all the answers and wanting to help people get his answers too. If he did, why call the synod? I also don’t think it’s a case of we want communion for the divorced/remarried so this path will lead to that end.

A penitential path is a way of affording the sacramental grace to those who are climbing that hill to salvation and perhaps a place of ‘limbo’ for those who’s condition is not fully understood yet by the Church.

And how does that differ from how the past two Popes have viewed the reforms? Since they were both present, I highly doubt that either one of them lacked an understanding on what the reforms were supposed to be.

It’s well known that the Vatican has had some ‘law unto themselves’ types having to much control over a lot of areas. Cardinal Pell was chosen to sort out a finance arm that had some pretty secret and dodgy history. Also by the theme of Pope Francis Christmas speech to the Curia, it was obvious the types of issues that were dominating the Vaticans direction. Perhaps there was a need for someone as non compliant to human agendas and power plays as Francis at this point in time?

 

[Brendan]

No I don’t think it is a case of the Pope having all the answers and wanting to help people get his answers too. If he did, why call the synod? I also don’t think it’s a case of we want communion for the divorced/remarried so this path will lead to that end.

I think we ALL want the divorced and ‘re-married’ to be able to receive Holy Communion. The challenge is to bring them to a point that they recognize that a sexual relationship outside if a valid marriage is harmful to their soul, and thus adopt a chaste lifestyle.

A penitential path is a way of affording the sacramental grace to those who are climbing that hill to salvation and perhaps a place of ‘limbo’ for those who’s condition is not fully understood yet by the Church.

Yes, that is what I stated. We are all climbing the hill to salvation. The Sacraments are our aid in that. What a penitential path brings about is, first and foremost, a recognition of the sin, and final rejection of the sin so that the path to salvation can finally be aided by the Sacraments.

It’s well known that the Vatican has had some ‘law unto themselves’ types having to much control over a lot of areas. Cardinal Pell was chosen to sort out a finance arm that had some pretty secret and dodgy history. Also by the theme of Pope Francis Christmas speech to the Curia, it was obvious the types of issues that were dominating the Vaticans direction. Perhaps there was a need for someone as non compliant to human agendas and power plays as Francis at this point in time?

In what way were Popes John Paul II or Benedict any less “non compliant to human agendas” than Pope Francis?

 

[_Abyssinia]

But Priests surely wouldn’t object to something of the general essence of a ‘penitential path’ that would bring people in these situations into a closer relationship with the very people who have the charism of imparting Gods forgiveness of sin?! At the moment people aren’t even permitted to Reconciliation until they have achieved an enormous feat which is hard for even completely faithful and devout Catholics. It is sort of like asking you to restore to right health someone who you ran over and paralyzed while drunk driving… before being entitled to absolution.

If the hierarchical Church calls for a new way to support the institution of marriage and ultimately promote the indissolubility of marriage… it is right and proper that all Priests and Bishops ‘think with the Church’. It’s a habit that is very Ignatian.

It would be a real travesty if going forward we are plagued with the same obstinence that plagued Vatican II. There’s a lot of criticism that the ‘liberals’ distorted the reforms of Vatican II but in reality there was a section of the Church that subtly washed their hands of them for the most part and set about creating their own version of things. How wonderful would the reforms have turned out if they had been tempered with both liberal and conservative (name removed by moderator)ut equally! That’s the hope of our very Ignatian pontiff I imagine!

“What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.”
― Ignatius of Loyola

Don’t you think there are Clergy that would object if they have to aide in providing a pathway to Communion for those who are not seeking to live as brother and sister but seek/continue to have a sexual relationship with their spouse, as a remarried person?

Fr Brian W. Harrison is critical of ‘penitential process’ he sees as ‘revisionist’ but there is a ‘penitential process’ that already exists’:

Archbishop Ladaria then outlined the steps in the penitential process:

• “Verify the validity of the religious marriage in the respect of truth, all the while avoiding giving the impression of a kind of ‘Catholic divorce.’”

• “See eventually if the persons, with the aid of grace, can separate from their new partners and reconcile with those from whom they had separated.”

• “Invite remarried divorced persons who, for serious reasons (for instance, children), cannot separate from their partner to live as ‘brother and sister.’”

“In any event, absolution cannot be granted if not under the condition of being assured of true contrition, that is, ‘a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future’ (Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c. 4),” Archbishop Ladaria concluded. “In this line, a remarried divorcee cannot be validly absolved if he does not take the firm resolution of not ‘sinning for the future’ and therefore of abstaining from the acts proper to spouses, by doing in this sense all that is within his power.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=23232

 

[mikekle]

Would this effect people who have marriages annulled?

Would it be possible for them to do annulments ‘retroactive’, or would that even be a good road to go down?

 

[Thorolfr]

Archbishop Ladaria then outlined the steps in the penitential process:
“Verify the validity of the religious marriage in the respect of truth, all the while avoiding giving the impression of a kind of ‘Catholic divorce.’”

I recently read about a Catholic woman who had left her first husband because she said he is a psychopath. Such a thing can happen where someone marries someone who turns out to be extremely physically and mentally abusive to their spouse and cannot be lived with. In such a case, what sin did the sane spouse commit that they should now have to be shackled for the rest of their life to a psychopath and must live a lonely and celibate life?

 

[Brendan]

Would it be possible for them to do annulments ‘retroactive’, or would that even be a good road to go down?

I’m not too sure what you mean by annulments in a ‘retroactive’ sense.

A declaration of nullity focuses on if the marriage was valid or not. If it is valid, it is valid until one of the spouses dies. No human act can break the marital bond.

If it is not valid, it never was a marriage, even from the beginning.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I recently read about a Catholic woman who had left her first husband because she said he is a psychopath. Such a thing can happen where someone marries someone who turns out to be extremely physically and mentally abusive to their spouse and cannot be lived with. In such a case, what sin did the sane spouse commit that they should now have to be shackled for the rest of their life to a psychopath and must live a lonely and celibate life?

Perhaps you would be interested in reading this:

Is divorce a sin when one’s spouse is abusive?

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-divorce-a-sin-when-ones-spouse-is-abusive

 

[Rau]

I recently read about a Catholic woman who had left her first husband because she said he is a psychopath. Such a thing can happen where someone marries someone who turns out to be extremely physically and mentally abusive to their spouse and cannot be lived with. In such a case, what sin did the sane spouse commit that they should now have to be shackled for the rest of their life to a psychopath and must live a lonely and celibate life?

Given you don’t know what the Church provides, why don’t you ask, rather than presuming something and throwing a brick?

 

[Thorolfr]

Given you don’t know what the Church provides, why don’t you ask, rather than presuming something and throwing a brick?

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.

That’s the part that I have difficulty comprehending because I don’t consider Christ to be so cruel that he would have required someone in this circumstance to remain bound in marriage. 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.

 

[JimG]

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.

A marriage, once validly contracted, remains unbreakable except by death. It was Jesus who gave us this teaching. The Church has no power to change it.

A tribunal can examine the marriage to determine whether in fact it was validly contracted. But Jesus did not permit divorce.

 

[Thorolfr]

A marriage, once validly contracted, remains unbreakable except by death. It was Jesus who gave us this teaching. The Church has no power to change it.

A tribunal can examine the marriage to determine whether in fact it was validly contracted. But Jesus did not permit divorce.

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.