Where has that been declared as the reason?**Two **Synods were held for a reason: to substantially alter “pastoral” practice without officially changing doctrine.
In order for the Church to change its discipline to allow Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, one of three things would have to happen:
- The Church would have to stop presuming that marriages are valid until proven otherwise (Canon 1060).
- The Church would have to stop teaching that people in a state of grave sin shouldn’t receive the Eucharist (Canons 915-16).
- The Church would have to stop teaching that Sacramental absolution requires the resolution to stop sinning and amend one’s life (Canon 987).
If all of this were really just discipline, any or all of it could be changed. The difficulty is that a lot of this discipline expresses doctrine:
crisismagazine.com/2014/discipline-changes-doctrine-debate-heart-synod
- The fact that people who are in a state of grave sin can’t receive the Eucharist comes from Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). It was taught at the Council of Trent (Decree on the Eucharist, Chapter 7), and is reiterated in the Catechism (CCC 1385).
- The fact that people who are in a state of grave sin can’t be absolved without proposing to stop sinning and amend their lives also comes from Scripture (John 8:11). It was taught at the Council of Trent (Decree on Penance, Chapter 4), and is reiterated in the Catechism (CCC 1451).
In order for the Church to change its discipline to allow Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, one of three things would have to happen:
- The Church would have to stop presuming that marriages are valid until proven otherwise (Canon 1060).
- The Church would have to stop teaching that people in a state of grave sin shouldn’t receive the Eucharist (Canons 915-16).
- The Church would have to stop teaching that Sacramental absolution requires the resolution to stop sinning and amend one’s life (Canon 987).
If all of this were really just discipline, any or all of it could be changed. The difficulty is that a lot of this discipline expresses doctrine:
When you remove all the emotions from the discussion and look at what the church has believed for centuries. If you allow exceptions to these things, then we are going to open the door to all types of exceptions. The CCC will be as understandable as the US tax code. Why even have the seven Sacraments? If the answer is as Wuerl said, “The church is moving fro legalism to mercy.” Then there is not one single sacrament you can argue is necessary. Gods mercy would trump of the “rules” as to why we need them.
- The fact that people who are in a state of grave sin can’t receive the Eucharist comes from Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). It was taught at the Council of Trent (Decree on the Eucharist, Chapter 7), and is reiterated in the Catechism (CCC 1385).
- The fact that people who are in a state of grave sin can’t be absolved without proposing to stop sinning and amend their lives also comes from Scripture (John 8:11). It was taught at the Council of Trent (Decree on Penance, Chapter 4), and is reiterated in the Catechism (CCC 1451).
It is the first of item of the list quoted that is questionable (Canon 1060). With respect to the instant question of the divorced and remarried, it is tantamount to the presumption of guilt, i.e., a first marriage is presumed valid and therefore the person is in the objective state of obstinate grave sin as the result of a second marriage. This is a basic legal distinction, where the presumption in a fair trial is of innocense rather than guilt and where guilt must be proven.When you remove all the emotions from the discussion and look at what the church has believed for centuries. If you allow exceptions to these things, then we are going to open the door to all types of exceptions. The CCC will be as understandable as the US tax code. Why even have the seven Sacraments? If the answer is as Wuerl said, “The church is moving fro legalism to mercy.” Then there is not one single sacrament you can argue is necessary. Gods mercy would trump of the “rules” as to why we need them.
Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.It is the first of item of the list quoted that is questionable (Canon 1650). With respect to the instant question of the divorced and remarried, it is tantamount to the presumtion of guilt, i.e., a first marriage is presumed valid and therefore the person is in the objective state of obstinate grave sin as the result of a second marriage. This is a basic legal distinction, where the presumption in a fair trial is of innocense rather than guilt and where guilt must be proven.
Marriage might posses the flavor of law under Canon Law, but I don’t believe this is true for a sacrament. Do you see where the presumtion of guilt leads? The validity of a sacrament becomes a legal argument.Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.
Doesnt seem very questionable to me.
If your priest says Mass, is there not a presumption of validity for the Eucharist?Marriage might posses the flavor of law under Canon Law, but I don’t believe this is true for a sacrament. Do you see where the presumtion of guilt leads? The validity of a sacrament becomes a legal argument.
The church has always taught a marriage is valid unless proven not to be so. The sacrament isnt like Schrodinger’s car, valid and invalid at the same time.Marriage might posses the flavor of law under Canon Law, but I don’t believe this is true for a sacrament. Do you see where the presumtion of guilt leads? The validity of a sacrament becomes a legal argument.
No, the validity of a marriage is not like Schrödinger’s cat, and neither is the observation new. It is the way a marriage tribunal views it that is not so clear with respect to Schrödinger’s cat. Are you sure you understood the observation?The church has always taught a marriage is valid unless proven not to be so. The sacrament isnt like Schrodinger’s car, valid and invalid at the same time.
A “presumption of guilt” is not a sound way to view the Canon. To presume that all “failed” marriages were invalid would be problematic.It is the first of item of the list quoted that is questionable (Canon 1060). With respect to the instant question of the divorced and remarried, it is tantamount to the presumption of guilt, i.e., a first marriage is presumed valid and therefore the person is in the objective state of obstinate grave sin as the result of a second marriage. This is a basic legal distinction, where the presumption in a fair trial is of innocense rather than guilt and where guilt must be proven.
I think the point was an invalid marriage was never valid.A “presumption of guilt” is not a sound way to view the Canon. To presume that all “failed” marriages were invalid would be problematic.
One could speculate that there might be another means to conclude that a (“failed”) marriage is not valid, that could be pursued readily prior to any subsequent marriage. But that would very likely earn (with some justification) the label of “catholic divorce”, yielding the desired result in a near automatic fashion. It would risk abandoning in all practical ways (if not in theory) the notion that marriage is permanent. The hypocrisy would be breathtaking…
I guess I’ve known that for at least the past sixty years. Let it go.That Catholic church has always taught that all marriages are valid until proven not valid.
No, it was valid until proven to be invalid.I think the point was an invalid marriage was never valid.
No, it was valid until proven to be invalid.
I see. Like the way an organism that comes into the world dead is alive until the coroner declares it dead. :juggle:No, it was valid until proven to be invalid.
No, the church clearly teaches all marriages are vaild until proven not to be. It doesnt teach they may or may not be.I see. Like the way an organism that comes into the world dead is alive until the coroner declares it dead.
Oh. I didn’t know that. So, when a marriage tribunal judges that a marriage is null and void, it then becomes null and void from that moment on. Is that it?No, the church clearly teaches all marriages are vaild until proven not to be. It doesnt teach they may or may not be.
An annulment is a declaration by a Church tribunal (a Catholic church court) that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.No, the church clearly teaches all marriages are vaild until proven not to be. It doesnt teach they may or may not be.
The participants in the marriage are also obligated to presume validity, which thus bars them from rationalizing away certain behaviours. To suggest the participants themselves could form a contrary view, and act upon it,would seem to dismantle the permanence of marriage entirely.The finding of a marriage tribunal that a marriage is null and void means the marriage was never valid. As such, the finding is that a valid marriage never existed. A marriage is presumed or regarded as valid absent a finding by a marriage tribunal of its Nullity. It is in this sense that a marriage is valid absent a contrary judgment by a tribunal. It is in this way that a marriage tribunal presumes a marriage is valid–but that it is valid might or might not be the determination of the tribunal.
This of course is different than a civil divorce, where the judgment is that the marriage is no longer valid going forward (i.e., the marriage ends at that point, but it was a legal marriage until that point in time).