Cardinal Pell: ‘Synod report does not create opening to Communion for divorced and remarried’

[philipl]

The problem is we have to.read what he says.
He clearly stated that marriage is indissoluble. That some annulments take 10 to 15 years ,that either one s marriage is valid or not.
He has opened the door of Mercy for Confession.
Explained that marriage is a serious thing , the need for preparation …

What are the problems for you ,Philipl?

Just here alone folks are say that its up to the person to decide they should go to communion. If their conscience it ok with it, then its ok. But it is either right or its wrong. The Pope needs to make which position is acceptable.

 

[graciew]

Just here alone folks are say that its up to the person to decide they should go to communion. If their conscience it ok with it, then its ok. But it is either right or its wrong. The Pope needs to make which position is acceptable.

I think we can share this reading,Philipl, and pray about it.
I liked it a lot and hope it helps us .
God bless you and thanks for your answer.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-be-courageous-go-to-confession/

 

[Justin_Swanton]

So you think not only that the two-thirds or more of the bishops at the synod misunderstood grace but that this error is therefore also Pope Francis’s error, and so it is impossible to suppose he does not want to admit remarried divorcees access to Communion?

And this is a logical argument, you think?

Paragraph 84 effectively says that remarried divorcees are in a state of grace - specifically those who are not living as brother and sister (otherwise why talk about it being ‘necessary to discern what are the various forms of exclusion currently practiced in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional areas may be overcome’).

This makes nonsense of the Catholic theology of grace. Nothing I can do about that.

Take the notion that it is enough to have remorse - not repentance nor amendment, just remorse - for a state of habitual sin, then apply it to the Pope’s concluding address and see if everything fits like a jigsaw puzzle. The criticisms are leveled at those who maintain that a moral law still applies even if one feels one is too weak to keep it, and that an uneasy conscience is no justification before God if one does not effectively repent and do what is necessary to amend one’s life.

I won’t do a complete job here, just pull out a few examples:

It was also about laying bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.

It was about making clear that the Church is a Church of the poor in spirit and of sinners seeking forgiveness, not simply of the righteous and the holy, but rather of those who are righteous and holy precisely when they feel themselves poor sinners.

The Synod experience also made us better realize that the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness.

 

[philipl]

I think we can share this reading,Philipl, and pray about it.
I liked it a lot and hope it helps us .
God bless you and thanks for your answer.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-be-courageous-go-to-confession/

another nonanswer answer. I understand that having a backbone in todays world is dificult. But morally right and wrong doesnt change. It was the same 2000 years ago as it is day. If sex outside of marriage is wrong, Just because people make poor decisions doesnt change the fact that sex outside of marriage is wrong. We dont have the option of saying, yea its wrong but in my case it can be over looked.

 

[Thomas_White]

Paragraph 84 effectively says that remarried divorcees are in a state of grace - specifically those who are not living as brother and sister (otherwise why talk about it being ‘necessary to discern what are the various forms of exclusion currently practiced in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional areas may be overcome’).

It means with the assistance of a priest, and under the direction of a bishop, to discern why one is excluded from current pastoral practice (e.g., not permitted to receive communion).

The title of the OP is as follows. "Cardinal Pell: ‘Synod report does not create opening to Communion for divorced and remarried’ ". While this is clear, what it means is arguable in its interpretation (there is for instance already the marriage tribunal), but with all due respect I have not seen another interpretation of the final synod document like the one you present here.

 

[Rau]

…The trouble with these paragraphs is that they are across-the-board - they lay down conditions for admitting remarried divorcees to any aspect of Church life including the sacraments. With this brief in hand, what reason would the Pope have for excluding Communion from the list?

Presumably then, comparable paragraphs could be written to address a person engaged in any other wrong situation that would tend to exclude them from communion?

 

[graciew]

I think it impossible any longer to suppose that the Pope does not want to admit remarried divorcees who show some sort of good disposition - without going as far as to sort out their situation - access to the sacraments including Communion. One has to face this fact and deal with it. It won’t be the first time in the Church’s history that a pope has had rather peculiar personal notions.

The Chair of Peter does not come with the guarantee that its incumbent will not get the wrong end of the stick even on important issues. It just guarantees that the incumbent will not transcribe his personal notions into the Church’s official teaching.

Once the principle of paragraph 84 is accepted, namely that a remarried divorcee can be in a state of grace ***without ***regularising his situation, then obviously there is no longer a reason to deny him Communion nor any other way of participating in the life of the Church. The trouble with these paragraphs is that they are across-the-board - they lay down conditions for admitting remarried divorcees to any aspect of Church life including the sacraments. With this brief in hand, what reason would the Pope have for excluding Communion from the list?

I do not know what he wants apart from the good of all and his love for Jesus and the Church.
Today I took your question for a walk and I asked myself if I might be trying to be imposing.
It is hard for us to separate our bishop from our Pope in our minds and hearts and please,forgive me for that.
Above all,we lived under his protective wings. He struggled to keep us together in difficult times,and in spite of our faults,he loved us and gave his life and efforts to guide us well,love the Popes and our Church. He taught us how to walk low,be patient,fight corruption and respect everyone with an open heart. He knew what he was talking about, he walked the streets,he was in touch.He swallowed hard despising gestures and crossed his body for our Church and the people of good will. Not that I learnt,but he is the same one for us in our hearts.

Forgive me if it does not sound what you expected,but from my heart I do not read many of the things as many do. He is still the same one and we are under his protective wings. Moreover,I am discovering much and much higher in both Benedict and Francis and for the glory of God,they are just amazing.
Jesus,I trust in You.
God bless you,Justin.
I ll try and read your book btw

 

[Thomas_White]

This makes nonsense of the Catholic theology of grace. Nothing I can do about that.

Take the notion that it is enough to have remorse - not repentance nor amendment, just remorse - for a state of habitual sin, then apply it to the Pope’s concluding address and see if everything fits like a jigsaw puzzle. The criticisms are leveled at those who maintain that a moral law still applies even if one feels one is too weak to keep it, and that an uneasy conscience is no justification before God if one does not effectively repent and do what is necessary to amend one’s life.

I won’t do a complete job here, just pull out a few examples:

It was about making clear that the Church is a Church of the poor in spirit and of sinners seeking forgiveness, not simply of the righteous and the holy, but rather of those who are righteous and holy precisely when they feel themselves poor sinners.

And this makes nonsense of the Catholic theology of grace? And does this also make nonsense of the Catholic theology of grace, you think?

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).

It means to recognize that one is bankrupt in spirit before God as the result of one’s sins and that one has nothing to offer Him. There is nothing left to do, nothing left to offer, and the situation is dire. But the realization of it is what is required to ever receive God’s salvation.

 

[philipl]

It means with the assistance of a priest, and under the direction of a bishop, to discern why one is excluded from current pastoral practice (e.g., not permitted to receive communion).

The title of the OP is as follows. "Cardinal Pell: ‘Synod report does not create opening to Communion for divorced and remarried’ ". While this is clear, what it means is arguable in its interpretation (there is for instance already the marriage tribunal), but with all due respect I have not seen another interpretation of the final synod document like the one you present here.

First, I present nothing in this thread. I am saying there is confusion if remarried catholics that havent recieved an annulment are allowed to go to communion. Are you saying it up to a priest and a bishop to decide if those remarried with out an annulment are allowed to go to communion?

 

[Thomas_White]

First, I present nothing in this thread. I am saying there is confusion if remarried catholics that havent recieved an annulment are allowed to go to communion. Are you saying it up to a priest and a bishop to decide if those remarried with out an annulment are allowed to go to communion?

Well, saying what you just said is presenting something in this thread. What perhaps is confusing is that what you are commenting on is from a discussion of the OP. What seems to happen is others then project their own perspective onto comments. It is often revealing. So, I not saying that it is up to a priest and a bishop to decide if the divorced and remarried without an annulment are allowed to go to communion.

What I have noted is that in a marriage case someone other than the individual ultimately decides the question. The current practice is that this judgment is for the marriage tribunal to make. But it seems to me a marraige tribunal would not necessary have to make this judgment, and that it could be made by a priest under the direction of a bishop. This change apparently unnerves some, but I don’t know why other than it is a change. Call it what one will, an anullment or otherwise, but it would be a finding by the Church that the first marriage was never valid.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I do not know what he wants apart from the good of all and his love for Jesus and the Church.
Today I took your question for a walk and I asked myself if I might be trying to be imposing.
It is hard for us to separate our bishop from our Pope in our minds and hearts and please,forgive me for that.
Above all,we lived under his protective wings. He struggled to keep us together in difficult times,and in spite of our faults,he loved us and gave his life and efforts to guide us well,love the Popes and our Church. He taught us how to walk low,be patient,fight corruption and respect everyone with an open heart. He knew what he was talking about, he walked the streets,he was in touch.He swallowed hard despising gestures and crossed his body for our Church and the people of good will. Not that I learnt,but he is the same one for us in our hearts.

Forgive me if it does not sound what you expected,but from my heart I do not read many of the things as many do. He is still the same one and we are under his protective wings. Moreover,I am discovering much and much higher in both Benedict and Francis and for the glory of God,they are just amazing.
Jesus,I trust in You.
God bless you,Justin.
I ll try and read your book btw

Personally I have a great liking for Pope Francis. To quote Don Camillo he has a heart as big as a house and a real compassion for human misery.

Nothing would make me happier than to be proven completely wrong, and for the Pope to produce an Exhortation that reaffirms unambiguously all of Catholic teaching on sin, repentance and marriage. I would cheer!

 

[Justin_Swanton]

And this makes nonsense of the Catholic theology of grace? And does this also make nonsense of the Catholic theology of grace, you think?

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).

It means to recognize that one is bankrupt in spirit before God as the result of one’s sins and that one has nothing to offer Him. There is nothing left to do, nothing left to offer, and the situation is dire. But the realization of it is what is required to ever receive God’s salvation.

Absolutely. But what it does ***not ***mean is “Blessed are those who sin gravely, know they are sinning gravely, wish they weren’t sinning gravely, but carry on sinning gravely anyway.”

 

[Thomas_White]

Absolutely. But what it does ***not ***mean is “Blessed are those who sin gravely, know they are sinning gravely, wish they weren’t sinning gravely, but carry on sinning gravely anyway.”

Very obviously it does not mean that, but perhaps what is not so obvious is that it applies to everyone.

 

[philipl]

Well, saying what you just said is presenting something in this thread. What perhaps is confusing is that what you are commenting on is from a discussion of the OP. What seems to happen is others then project their own perspective onto comments. It is often revealing. So, I not saying that it is up to a priest and a bishop to decide if the divorced and remarried without an annulment are allowed to go to communion.

What I have noted is that in a marriage case someone other than the individual ultimately decides the question. The current practice is that this judgment is for the marriage tribunal to make. But it seems to me a marraige tribunal would not necessary have to make this judgment, and that it could be made by a priest under the direction of a bishop. This change apparently unnerves some, but I don’t know why other than it is a change. Call it what one will, an anullment or otherwise, but it would be a finding by the Church that the first marriage was never valid.

This isnt hard to understand.

Is it a sin to go to communion if youre in a state of mortal sin? Yes or no

Is it a sin to have sex outside of marriage? Yes or No

Is a remarried couple that hasnt received an annulment in a state of sin if they have sex? Yes or No.

There is no maybe here, its one or the other.

 

[Thomas_White]

This isnt hard to understand.

Is it a sin to go to communion if youre in a state of mortal sin? Yes or no

It depends. It is part of the question, is it not? Who answers the question?

Is it a sin to have sex outside of marriage? Yes or No

The teaching of Matthew 5:28 seems to say lust (sexual desire) is sinful. IMHO, this teaching should be understood in the context of the words that follow: “With men this is impossible…” (Luke 19:26).

Is a remarried couple that hasnt received an annulment in a state of sin if they have sex? Yes or No.

Who can say? Was the first marriage valid or not? If the marriage was invalid, it was by definition never valid. Matthew 5:28 tells us what adultery means.

There is no maybe here, its one or the other.

To be sure, that is your perspective but not mine. What seems curious in the larger debate is the intense focus on sexual morality. It is the human condition, but in my opinion there is a great deal more to spirituality than that. I see it as an impediment to spiritual growth when an internal struggle is projected elsewhere. When the discussion then becomes a righteous discussion about sexual morality, I see it as sublimation. It is odd, I think.

 

[JimG]

It depends. It is part of the question, is it not? Who answers the question?

The teaching of Matthew 5:28 seems to say lust (sexual desire) is sinful. IMHO, this teaching should be understood in the context of the words that follow: “With men this is impossible…” (Luke 19:26).

Who can say? Was the first marriage valid or not? If the marriage was invalid, it was by definition never valid. Matthew 5:28 tells us what adultery means.

To be sure, that is your perspective but not mine. What seems curious in the larger debate is the intense focus on sexual morality. It is the human condition, but in my opinion there is a great deal more to spirituality than that. I see it as an impediment to spiritual growth when an internal struggle is projected elsewhere. When the discussion then becomes a righteous discussion about sexual morality, I see it as sublimation. It is odd, I think.

To all three of the questions:
(Is it a sin to go to communion if you’re in a state of mortal sin? Is it a sin to have sex outside of marriage? Is a remarried couple that hasn’t received an annulment in a state of sin if they have sex?)
you have essentially stated “It depends.” I see a possibility here for a new textbook of moral theology. The title will be “It Depends,” and it will consider a lot of ways in which we can end up doing what we want without ever breaking the moral law.

 

[Thomas_White]

To all three of the questions:
(Is it a sin to go to communion if you’re in a state of mortal sin? Is it a sin to have sex outside of marriage? Is a remarried couple that hasn’t received an annulment in a state of sin if they have sex?)
you have essentially stated “It depends.” I see a possibility here for a new textbook of moral theology. The title will be “It Depends,” and it will consider a lot of ways in which we can end up doing what we want without ever breaking the moral law.

This is your perspective and not mine. That a divorced and remarried person who has not received an annullment is in the state of mortal sin by that fact alone is a presumption. It is a further presumption that the first marriage was valid. So, it depends on who is making the judgment. If the issue is receiving communion, there is also spiritual communion. The word ‘blinkered’ comes to mind.

I believe Matthew 5:28 is very much to the point in understanding the meaning of “adultery”. There is then Matthew 7.1 to consider.

 

[clem456]

The chaos that results when individual culpability is confused with doctrine.

They are related, but they are not the same thing, and doctrine is not altered by any individual circumstance.

 

[philipl]

This is your perspective and not mine. That a divorced and remarried person who has not received an annullment is in the state of mortal sin by that fact alone is a presumption. It is a further presumption that the first marriage was valid. So, it depends on who is making the judgment. If the issue is receiving communion, there is also spiritual communion. The word ‘blinkered’ comes to mind.

I believe Matthew 5:28 is very much to the point in understanding the meaning of “adultery”. There is then Matthew 7.1 to consider.

The important thing to remember is God’s perspective. I have no ability to judge almost anyone. I do have opinions, that isnt the same thing a judging. Do I care if there are those that go to communion and shouldnt? no. To be honest I dont know anyone in that line. So there is no way I can know anything about their lives. Only God can judge them. The important thing is for the church to make sure Catholics understand what God will judge as right and wrong. We seem to becoming a faith that forgets the truth and believes what make us feel good about ourselves.

 

[outremer]

**Two **Synods were held for a reason: to substantially alter “pastoral” practice without officially changing doctrine.