C
Corki
Guest
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:26-29[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:19[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]
That’s what God said. How is what man said different?
Cardinal Kasper: Sacraments for remarried divorcees only in "special cases"
- Status
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:19[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]
That’s what God said. How is what man said different?
C
CutlerB
Guest
It is the Word of God through Saint Paul. Are you saying we should doubt anything that is not explicitly said by Jesus in the Gospels?
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
I see what you are saying but in the example I give a womans marriage is invaded by evil and she leaves it. to remain in that marriage would be a marriage with satan himself. It doesnt matter if they were bound by the church as the man was decieving when taking the vows and hiding behind a mask. Now the woman does the right thing and exits but is denied communion? she is now unworthy? Do you really think Jesus would have said woman you are forbidden from my body? Or would he have invited her to the table?
C
CutlerB
Guest
“The man was deceiving when taking the vows” — that influences the validity of the marriage and can be grounds for an annulment, viz. a declaration that the marriage was invalid to begin with, thus allowing a second marriage.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
What im saying is even in catholic circles that its a pretty well known fact that the apostles themselves probably didnt write the gospels. Say that to a protestant and you will catch on fire but its a pretty acepted concept. The titles of the apostles were used to give them weight when the oral traditions were finally written down. So did anything get lost in translation? who knows???
C
CutlerB
Guest
The Church knows, and that is necessary and binding for a Catholic to believe. By the way, Mark and Luke weren’t written by Apostles, that is spot on.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
Ok on that grounds i see that but lets say they were married and he was at the time a good man but evil crept in and same outcome happened? Is she still unworthy?
C
CutlerB
Guest
Again, if the marriage was valid (he didn’t fake the vows, for example, but there are more factors), then neither of the two parties can validly remarry until one of them dies. If they don’t remarry before that, they can still receive Communion.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
Ok I see you point here but the question still remains do you think Jesus would have precluded her from his table?
Last time i checked he didnt shoo away the tax collectors, prostetutes, sinners, etc, etc. He invited them in to repent and to accept him as Christ!
The church on the otherhand lays it out so there is no option at al for repentance except through anullment? Where was it again that jesus preached about anulments?
C
Corki
Guest
Being married to an evil person is not being married to Satan. One does not enter into a relationship with Satan unwillingly.
I believe this was answered already. Deceiving a spouse prior to the wedding is grounds for annulment.
No, she isn’t. The Church does not teach that it is wrong to exit but rather that it is often necessary to exit such a relationship. She cannot be denied Communion for doing the right thing.
No, she isn’t unworthy in this circumstance and any priest who would deny her Communion simply for leaving an abusive marriage would be wrong.
But that’s not the end of the story, is it? It’s what came next that also matters.
C
CutlerB
Guest
I think you missed what I wrote, since my answer to this question is already contained in my previous post.
If the marriage is valid, and the woman divorces her husband because he abuses her, but doesn’t civilly remarry: Jesus would certainly invite her to the table, very lovingly.
If the marriage is valid, the woman divorces her husband and remarries another civilly, but repents and lives continently: Yes, Jesus would receive her, if I understand the matter correctly (Others?)
If the marriage is valid, the woman divorces her husband and remarries another civilly, and obstinately refuses to repent: No, Jesus wouldn’t receive her.
If the marriage is invalid: Jesus receives her all the more, for her suffering.
He said “Go, and now sin no more”. Yes, He forgave her, but told her that she should not commit adultery any longer.
C
Corki
Guest
Jesus did a little more that just “invite” them to repent. He told them to “go and sin no more”. And the Church doesn’t “shoo” anyone away. But some people, by their own choices, exclude themselves from the Sacraments.
Annulment is not an option for repentance. Repentance is about the past. You do not have to be sorry about anything to seek an annulment. Annulment is a path to move forward. Anyone can reconcile with the Church, amend their lives and return to Communion - anyone. It’s all about making the right choices. Annulment just gives a divorced person some more options on how to do that.
And what Jesus said about annulment is in Matthew 16.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
You and I have a completly different thinking when it comes to the teachings of Christ.
I think Christ would have forgiven the divorce because of the situation since she was innocent. I believe he would have wanted her to remarry and finish out his plan for her which was to love and share that love with someone here on earth and bring childeren which she did. The tenant of mariage was not just a contract it was also the presence of love. Love was the key aspect of the marriage. When that love is removed by evil deeds the inocent should not be punished for wantng to fufill our purpose and re-marrying and celebrating that love. I think that she would be obsolved of any sin due to the circumstances by Christ himself. Unfortunatly we men look at the literal text and say no she signed a contract no matter the situation it is a contract and can not be revoked. Thats just plain stupid because the key thing here is love. To say that instead of divorce one must live alone in suffering is rediculous. To remove the love that a man and woman share when joined in marriage is the ultimate opposite of anything christ taught us. Marriage is one of the greatest of all the sacraments and is a visual representation of the heavenly union here on earth. To exclude someone from that because of circumstances is a very serious issue expecially in the instances i mentioned. living alone never to experience that particular married love would be just wrong and I dont that that would be jesus approved.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
I think excluding anyone from the table of christ if they have expressed a interest and passion to be there would be a travesty no matter the sin commited. As for anulment they are only given in certain circumstances if you dont meet the criteria…sorry no communion for you but hey we catholics welcome you!
C
CutlerB
Guest
Then let us discuss them.
The divorce itself is not sinful.
Two things here: First, where do you take that understanding from? Second, how do you know what His plan is?
That has a role in the validity of the marriage at the vows, yes.
Where do you find that in the Bible/Tradition though? The love may be removed, but that has no bearing on whether the marriage was valid in the first place. Marriage is indissoluble.
The question is whether the contract says it is an irrevocable one, which the Christian Marriage does say. The contract can be suspended (civil divorce) but not revoked.
“Take up your Cross and follow Me.” God never said that we would all be happy here on earth all the time, nor that we should be.
Exactly, and that is why it is permanent. Marriage is a symbol of the love Christ has for His Church, as, I think, Saint Paul says, which is “a love that never falters, a love that pays the price, that pays upon the Altar the final Sacrifice” as the splendid I Vow to Thee My Country goes.
Those poor priests… giving up marriage for the sake of the Kingdom against Jesus’ will…
O
Orogeny
Guest
You know, I have been following this thread and have started to reply a couple of times but decided not to. I must say, I have shaken my head numerous times at the obvious lack of understanding of Church teaching on marriage, the Eucharist and sin.
Let me ask you, eightydeuce82, what man is authorized by God in scripture to dissolve a sacramental marriage?
Peace
Tim
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
Our plan on earth. Get born, hopefully gain faith, get married, have childeren, then die! Thats human nature my friend and gods plan.
The priest thing is rediculous as they marry the church, but yes poor priests because no they dont experience the sacrament as we do…but thats their cross.
“Exactly, and that is why it is permanent. Marriage is a symbol of the love Christ has for His Church, as, I think, Saint Paul says, which is “a love that never falters, a love that pays the price, that pays upon the Altar the final Sacrifice” as the splendid I Vow to Thee My Country goes”
So if evil takes over the church were supposed to just stick it out and wait till the end and stand by it? You see what your doing here German? Your going to make another Luthor here! I think Paul meant Marriage is a symbol of the love Christ has for His “people”.
You see when you think the way you do one would think that you believe that those outside the"church" are not going to make it to the kingdom…
The priest thing is rediculous as they marry the church, but yes poor priests because no they dont experience the sacrament as we do…but thats their cross.
“Exactly, and that is why it is permanent. Marriage is a symbol of the love Christ has for His Church, as, I think, Saint Paul says, which is “a love that never falters, a love that pays the price, that pays upon the Altar the final Sacrifice” as the splendid I Vow to Thee My Country goes”
So if evil takes over the church were supposed to just stick it out and wait till the end and stand by it? You see what your doing here German? Your going to make another Luthor here! I think Paul meant Marriage is a symbol of the love Christ has for His “people”.
You see when you think the way you do one would think that you believe that those outside the"church" are not going to make it to the kingdom…
O
Orogeny
Guest
You mean living alone never to experience that particular married love just like Jesus did?
Peace
Tim
C
CutlerB
Guest
Where do you get that from?
Not in the way of a Sacramental Marriage, though, which is the point here.
Evil will never take over the Church (Mt 16:18). I will not be addressed as “German”, Sir. Precisely, you “think”… Paul meant this and that. How do you know you’re right? His People are the Church, the Church is His People.
I retain the prerogative of knowing the way I think for myself, thank you very much.
Are you a Catholic in good standing with the local Bishop who is in Communion with the Holy Father, Pope Francis, Sir?
P
Pio_Nono
Guest
When Neo-Modernists such as Kaspar, Bergoglio, Ratzinger, et al., refer to the “early Church” and the Nicene Cannon that seems to permit a second marriage, what they are not telling you is that the permission for a second marriage in the early Church meant marrying again ON THE DEATH OF YOUR SPOUSE. In the early Church, the idea was to remain in the state that you were in; let married stay married, let single stay single, etc., according to St Paul. To avoid concupiscence, St Paul deemed it better to marry, but preferable to remain celibate. St Paul referred, of course to those who were eligible to marry, not those who felt “unhappy” or “abused” by their spouse and wanted to trade him or her in for a better model. This reference to the Council of Nicea and the “early Church” in no way can be read as a permission for re-marriage after divorce. Typical Modernist thought: a bit of truth and a lot of spin.
- Status