If indeed such a downgrade in the treatment of indissolubility is not possible, then it would have been reassuring for the synod to have reaffirmed plainly and emphatically that marriage is for life, and that the doctrine can not be changed.As this is a clear doctrine of the Church, such a downgrade is not possible, nor has anyone suggested it. It is a straw man that keeps popping up.
I believe the synod did just that. The question of whether a divorced and remarried person would be permitted to receive communion surely concerns the question of the validity of the first marriage. It would seem that the recommendation of the final synod document would address the question differently than is current practice. It would seem to involve the internal forum, the forum of conscience, with any final determination made by an ordained priest. This in essence would remove any judgment of nullity from a marriage tribunal to a member of the clergy.If indeed such a downgrade in the treatment of indissolubility is not possible, then it would have been reassuring for the synod to have reaffirmed plainly and emphatically that marriage is for life, and that the doctrine can not be changed.
Well, I hope I am wrong about this. I just did not see that emphasis on the status of the first marriage in all this discussion. Instead I saw an emphasis on the status of the second marriage. Are its fruits good? Are there children to be raised? Has it proved itself? That’s all good to consider, but not of much use IF the first marriage is indeed valid.I believe the synod did just that. The question of whether a divorced and remarried person would be permitted to receive communion surely concerns the question of the validity of the first marriage. It would seem that the recommendation of the final synod document would address the question differently than is current practice. It would seem to involve the internal forum, the forum of conscience, with any final determination made by an ordained priest. This in essence would remove any judgment of nullity from a marriage tribunal to a member of the clergy.
Under current practice, a person’s decision to petition a marriage tribunal for a marriage case to be heard surely involves the internal forum. The difference is then in who makes the judgment as to validity of the first marraige. This is there to see, and it would seem a great deal of confusion has been raised as to whether what is proposed would be to permit a person in the state of mortal sin to receive communion. This is not there to see. It is a straw man.
From the document:If indeed such a downgrade in the treatment of indissolubility is not possible, then it would have been reassuring for the synod to have reaffirmed plainly and emphatically that marriage is for life, and that the doctrine can not be changed.
I just cannot see that the Church would ever say a person in the state of mortal sin should receive communion, though I guess I could be wrong. If so, I would disagree as well. I realize much emphasis in the discussion has concerned the second marriage, and we will have to wait and see what happens. But it is difficult to see how this is resolved without some resolution concerning the validity of the first marriage and what a valid marriage means with respect to the indissoulubity of marriage.Well, I hope I am wrong about this. I just did not see that emphasis on the status of the first marriage in all this discussion. Instead I saw an emphasis on the status of the second marriage. Are its fruits good? Are there children to be raised? Has it proved itself? That’s all good to consider, but not of much use IF the first marriage is indeed valid.
So if a decision is made as to the validity of the second marriage which allows for communion, then a simultaneous decision is made on the validity of the first marriage. And that decision ought to be communicated to all interested parties. But this is just speculation at this point.
From the document,I just cannot see that the Church would ever say a person in the state of mortal sin should receive communion, though I guess I could be wrong. If so, I would disagree as well.
So that part of “doctrine” seems to be quite open to change, it seems.
- Some synod fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons or those living together can have fruitful recourse to a spiritual communion. Others raised the question as to why, then, they cannot have access to sacramental Communion. As a result, the synod fathers requested that further theological study in the matter with a view to making clear the distinctive features of the two forms and their connection with the theology of marriage.
Yes, and I know Pope Benedict XVI considered this very point, even suggesting that spiritual communion could be a higher form of communion (in individual instances). It raises a question of what “ex-communion” and death of the soul could mean, as though spirituality were not possible for a person in the state of mortal sin where praying the Rosary or visiting the adoration chapel had no meaning. Does the conscience also cease functioning? I don’t believe spirituality is ever closed to anyone.From the document,
So that part of “doctrine” seems to be quite open to change, it seems.
The Catechism of Trent highly values spiritual communion.Yes, and I know Pope Benedict XVI considered this very point, even suggesting that spiritual communion could be a higher form of communion (in individual instances).
In case somebody hasn t seen this prayer.The Catechism of Trent highly values spiritual communion.
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml