M
McCall1981
Guest
It’s good to know that Card Kasper is not suggesting a sweeping change.
Cardinal Kasper: Sacraments for remarried divorcees only in "special cases"
- Status
C
CutlerB
Guest
Sir, I am neither an “ultra traditionalist” nor do I consider myself superior to anyone here. If presenting the teaching of the Catholic Church (as far as I understand it) is “ultra traditionalist” and “threatening”, then I suggest you don’t post on CAF, since you’ll get a lot of orthodox teaching here.
I’m sorry if you feel that your not abiding by rules that you signed only a few moments ago is the target of “comical” reporting. I will not be insulted, nor do I want anyone else here to be, thus I feel it is my duty to ensure proper conduct is observed as far as it is my capability.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
I agree the name is interesting. Look man im a catholic in good standing im ok its not easy when people tell you your family is going to hell…with that said im sure the folks who want to discuss this topic will go ahead well after our side discussion…im not worried about that.
our discussion is kind of inline with the above tpic so ponder these…
Sign of the cross not practiced by apostles but started in 9th century! Tertullian made the sign on the forehead. Today it is different!
53 Roman Catholic Doctrines not found in the Bible (1400 years of doctrinal evolution)
Marriage to non-Catholics was invalid until 1818 AD.
Eucharist: Withholding the communion cup from the laity began in 1416 AD.
Eucharist: Frequency of communion changed from weekly to daily in 500 AD.
Baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.
No infant baptism till 4th century.
No Pope was considered infallible until 1870 AD
I say the above topic and what we are discussing is a valid point to discuss on the thread all jabbing aside.
C
CutlerB
Guest
Well, no one here said that your family was going to Hell and we certainly don’t hope so.
Not a matter of doctrine.
An unsupported assertion. Why are you a Catholic then anyway?
Not a matter of doctrine.
Not a matter of doctrine, and not universally practiced.
Not a matter of doctrine.
Not a matter of doctrine, and quite easily refuted by reading the Didache.
Prove it, don’t assert, prove. Where is the document that officially invented Infant Baptism, or the one that denounced it as heresy before?
Assertions.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Each of those things could be (and have been already on CAF) addressed in a separate thread. Suffice it to say, the one thing they all have in common is that none of them demonstrate a change in doctrine.
C
CutlerB
Guest
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
Ok then how do you all view Vatican II? was that a change?
If what you all say is true then I will conceede that to you all but what I can then say is that the interpretation of Doctrine and Dogmas have changed over the years.
If what you all say is true then I will conceede that to you all but what I can then say is that the interpretation of Doctrine and Dogmas have changed over the years.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
also youre “prove it” statement is pretty out there! Considering none of us can “prove” with out a doubt that the church itself was created by god himself thats kid of a streatch. We took an interpretation on peter the rock and went with that…faith is what we have when “proof” doesnt exist.
C
CutlerB
Guest
That is not the topic here. Open a new thread. I will not have my thread closed because it went off-topic.
C
Corki
Guest
The original post is about the discussion going on in Rome about possible alternate approaches to deal pastorally with divorced and remarried Catholics.
It does not mean that those divorced and remarried are free to receive Communion.
It does not mean that “if you believe what the ‘old church’ used to teach” (as a discipline) you can go ahead and disregard what the Church says.
It means they are discussing it.
The older practice of the Church was to allow some people back into Communion in spite of a prior divorce after a period of penance. In those days, penance was public. Now, when a divorced and remarried Catholic comes back into communion, even if it is by agreeing to live as brother and sister, no one knows and there is a danger of giving scandal. That’s why the provision includes the statement that the person should receive Communion at a Church where his/her irregular marital situation is not known.
So, the question is, how does the Church make a Sacramental accommodation (penance followed by Communion) for some people without harming the rest of the Church? Since the ancient practice did not include a second marriage, it was effectively permissible fornication. Can we absorb such a practice today? Can the Church effectively do both - allow a return to Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics but still stand by the teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment?
Frankly, none of us are qualified to answer those questions. Not even a Bishop is. Only the Church acting in concert can.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
you must be the oly one who thinks your thread was hijacked! settle down I told you what I was talking about goes with the tread.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
The distinction is between change and development.
Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing will ever be added to it. The deposit of faith the Apostles received from Jesus (and which has been subsequently passed down through all generations to the present day) is whole and entire. Nothing can be added to it or subtracted from it. It will never change.
However, doctrine certainly can and does develop. The Apostles didn’t go around boldly proclaiming a fully articulated version of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. That developed over centuries.
I won’t pretend to be the best person in the world at articulating this distinction. And I can certainly understand how people would miss it or even characterize it as a distinction without a difference. But it is an important distinction for us to understand when looking at Church history – particularly the history of doctrine.
It is sort of a paradox. On the one hand, development is necessary and unavoidable. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. And that Body is a living Body. The Church is dynamic, not static.
But on the other hand, the truth does not change. God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Think of what it would mean if it were not true that the deposit of faith we receive was whole and entire and nothing could be added to it or subtracted from it. That would mean that previous generations did not have the whole deposit by which to be saved. That would mean Jesus gave the Apostles only half the story. Indeed, that would mean that we at present wouldn’t even have the whole story. And then the natural question would be: What’s missing? What piece of teaching that is necessary for our very salvation has been left out? And if every teaching is incomplete and open to changing in any way, then how can we really trust any of it? It would basically mean that we’re all left to our own devices to figure out what is true and what is not. And if that’s where we’re at, then why did Jesus bother coming at all?
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
Corki thanks for cutting through the bull and seeing my point. thank you for your response!
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
Joe I would say that your not the average Joe!!! that my friend is a great way to put it!!!
C
CutlerB
Guest
See, there are friendly people on here.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Thanks. :blushing:
I just thought of an analogy that might be helpful ,too. Think of an acorn and an oak tree. The acorn is the seed that will eventually grow into the massive oak tree. The essence of that oak tree is present in that tiny acorn. But there is still lots of room for growth. That’s what development is.
But the acorn isn’t going to grow into an elephant.
That would be change.
C
CutlerB
Guest
Actually, I am not, and I know that for a fact.
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
My issue is the what god said and what man said problem.
I will spare you all the why and what we believe the sacrament of communion to be as im sure you are all aware…with that said when a divorced person (and lets say for good reason) is turned down the eucharist why is that a good thing?
We are relational beings and no one knows that more than the catholic church and we are supposed to share our existance in love with a man or a woman. When a man or woman destroys this bond by infedelity, abuse, etc…etc… are we to expect that the woman remain in a relationship where obviously satan has taken over? Now the woman is forced to live a life of solitude and never be with another? Never to experience that love again? And God forbid if she divorces and remarries she is now excluded from one of the major sacraments in the Catholic faith? Even though she is truning from evil and reestablishing love somehwere else?
So we are saying that hunny im sorry your husband almost killed you or cheated on you…Im sorry that evil has invaded your house…but suck it up butter cup cause you now can not ever feel that or look for that again and you must remain selebate and seperate?
this person could be a saint for all we know and denying the body and blood of christ would be terrible! Is that what god wanted? to me that is absent of any teachings of Christ and only casts people out and sactters them rather if it were to unite them then I would think differently. Thats what I was getting at
“There already is a procedure for remarried divorcees to receive the Sacraments, stop living in sin. Remember, receiving communion will do them no good if they continue to commit adultery and end up in Hell for eternity. We might pat ourselves on the back at how wonderfully inclusive we are being, how kind we are being, but we might find ourselves in Hell next to them for failing to preach repentance. This whole conversation issues forth from the false premise of universalism.”
this statement could be then seen as a very poor statement and offensive!
I will spare you all the why and what we believe the sacrament of communion to be as im sure you are all aware…with that said when a divorced person (and lets say for good reason) is turned down the eucharist why is that a good thing?
We are relational beings and no one knows that more than the catholic church and we are supposed to share our existance in love with a man or a woman. When a man or woman destroys this bond by infedelity, abuse, etc…etc… are we to expect that the woman remain in a relationship where obviously satan has taken over? Now the woman is forced to live a life of solitude and never be with another? Never to experience that love again? And God forbid if she divorces and remarries she is now excluded from one of the major sacraments in the Catholic faith? Even though she is truning from evil and reestablishing love somehwere else?
So we are saying that hunny im sorry your husband almost killed you or cheated on you…Im sorry that evil has invaded your house…but suck it up butter cup cause you now can not ever feel that or look for that again and you must remain selebate and seperate?
this person could be a saint for all we know and denying the body and blood of christ would be terrible! Is that what god wanted? to me that is absent of any teachings of Christ and only casts people out and sactters them rather if it were to unite them then I would think differently. Thats what I was getting at
“There already is a procedure for remarried divorcees to receive the Sacraments, stop living in sin. Remember, receiving communion will do them no good if they continue to commit adultery and end up in Hell for eternity. We might pat ourselves on the back at how wonderfully inclusive we are being, how kind we are being, but we might find ourselves in Hell next to them for failing to preach repentance. This whole conversation issues forth from the false premise of universalism.”
this statement could be then seen as a very poor statement and offensive!
C
CutlerB
Guest
Divorced people can receive the Eucharist, I think. It is only those who had a valid sacramental marriage who have been divorced and civilly remarried who cannot receive the Eucharist as long as they persist in that state.
Jesus said “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” If the first marriage was a valid, sacramental marriage, it is indissoluble and civilly remarrying thus constitutes an act of adultery in the eyes of the Church.
The Church recognises that civil divorce is permissible in certain circumstances, such as abuse. That is a separate issue, though, from the one of the validity of the marriage in the first place.
Suffering tests us and can sanctify us. Look at what Jesus achieved by enduring the Cross, He sanctifies His people. That’s why He says “Take up your Cross daily and follow Me”, each one of us has their own cross to bear. I know, it’s hard words, but wasn’t the Crucifixion hard too? How much more so!
Well, I understand why it could be, but if the truth offends people, that’s just too bad. To put it bluntly.
Sin remains sin, no matter the kind. Mortal sin excludes you from Communion, no matter the kind. Repentance and Confession is the way to be admitted to Communion again. As Saint Paul says in I Cor 11:
E
eightydeuce82
Guest
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
Did man say that or the Lord? (i know the answer)
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
Did man say that or the Lord? (i know the answer)
- Status