Communion alone is ‘not the solution’ for divorced and re-married Catholics, says Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter ProVobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Phil502 said:
She has a stable marriage and children. Now she should tell her spouse that the “marriage” is essentially over, she and her spouse can only live as brother and sister, how many marriages could sustain that? What is the consequences if her marriage breaks up as far as the children are concerned. Probably Alice can not take this path.
Click to expand...
That is exactly why the Holy father wants these issues examined.
 
sttcatherinefan said:
I think the Friday meat thing is a good comparison. I hardly ever eat meat and I adore eating delicious seafood! Sheesh, I have spent vacations eating only yummy fish. I’ve gone days without eating meat in perfect happiness. I also have had an eating disorder in the past and used Lent as a way to cover my eating habits. So it really is one size fits all and is odd to me based on my experiences. I think that the same deal has to be for remarriage. There are lots of remarried divorcees out there and yet the Church is still discussing this like it is scandalous in wider society. It is like suggesting that average middle class people are sacrificing because they cannot afford high quality meatless meals during Lent. There really needs to be a rethinking.
Click to expand...
Neither limbo, nor meatless fridays, are/were doctrinal teachings of the Church.
 
McCall1981 said:
Neither limbo, nor meatless fridays, are/were doctrinal teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point though. With hindsight and 20 years of expounding on that development, you have confidence in the dropping of the idea of Limbo. At the time, many Catholics feared that making an exception to the restriction to salvation of unbaptised infants and of the invincibly ignorant as entrusted to the mercy of God, would damage the doctrine of Original Sin and the teaching on the necessity of Baptism. Their fears were of the same nature as the fears being expressed now that if any allowance or concession entrusted to the mercy of God is made to the exclusion rule of divorced/remarrieds from Sacramental life… it will lead to damage of the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage.

Many Catholics to this day claim that those concessions were ‘changes’ to the doctrine of the Church rendering the Church invalid.

There are also some Catholic Churchs who still oblige the congregation to fast and abstain as per Pope Pius XII, Sacram Communionem, 1957 as doctrinally necessary.
 
LongingSoul said:
You are missing the point though. With hindsight and 20 years of expounding on that development, you have confidence in the dropping of the idea of Limbo. At the time, many Catholics feared that making an exception to the restriction to salvation of unbaptised infants and of the invincibly ignorant as entrusted to the mercy of God, would damage the doctrine of Original Sin and the teaching on the necessity of Baptism. Their fears were of the same nature as the fears being expressed now that if any allowance or concession entrusted to the mercy of God is made to the exclusion rule of divorced/remarrieds from Sacramental life… it will lead to damage of the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage.

Many Catholics to this day claim that those concessions were ‘changes’ to the doctrine of the Church rendering the Church invalid.

There are also some Catholic Churchs who still oblige the congregation to fast and abstain as per Pope Pius XII, Sacram Communionem, 1957 as doctrinally necessary.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, I just disagree with you.
 
LongingSoul said:
You are missing the point though. With hindsight and 20 years of expounding on that development, you have confidence in the dropping of the idea of Limbo. At the time, many Catholics feared that making an exception to the restriction to salvation of unbaptised infants and of the invincibly ignorant as entrusted to the mercy of God, would damage the doctrine of Original Sin and the teaching on the necessity of Baptism. Their fears were of the same nature as the fears being expressed now that if any allowance or concession entrusted to the mercy of God is made to the exclusion rule of divorced/remarrieds from Sacramental life… it will lead to damage of the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage.

Many Catholics to this day claim that those concessions were ‘changes’ to the doctrine of the Church rendering the Church invalid.

There are also some Catholic Churchs who still oblige the congregation to fast and abstain as per Pope Pius XII, Sacram Communionem, 1957 as doctrinally necessary.
Click to expand...
The 'Idea" of Limbo was never a Doctrine of the Church. Over 50 years ago I lost a baby boy, he died before birth and was unable to be Baptized. Fr. explained to me that he is in the hands of God’s Mercy and I need never worry about hm. God loves him more than I do and has him in HIS care. That’s enough for me. 20 years later I lost another baby boy before birth and that priest told me almost the same thing. Limbo was never mentioned. I named both my babies and we buried them ourself. They are still part of our family and I know they are safe. Thank God for His LOVE and MERCY. God Bless. Memaw
 
LongingSoul said:
You are missing the point though. With hindsight and 20 years of expounding on that development, you have confidence in the dropping of the idea of Limbo. At the time, many Catholics feared that making an exception to the restriction to salvation of unbaptised infants and of the invincibly ignorant as entrusted to the mercy of God, would damage the doctrine of Original Sin and the teaching on the necessity of Baptism. Their fears were of the same nature as the fears being expressed now that if any allowance or concession entrusted to the mercy of God is made to the exclusion rule of divorced/remarrieds from Sacramental life… it will lead to damage of the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage.

Many Catholics to this day claim that those concessions were ‘changes’ to the doctrine of the Church rendering the Church invalid.

There are also some Catholic Churchs who still oblige the congregation to fast and abstain as per Pope Pius XII, Sacram Communionem, 1957 as doctrinally necessary.
Click to expand...
The previous poster didn’t miss the point at all. The point is that disciplines, such as abstaining from meat, fasting, etc can be changed when necessary because they serve to reinforce the doctrines of the Faith. Things like the absolute indissolubility of marriage can never change because they are doctrines - they are a crucial part of the Faith itself. All doctrine is equally off-limits for modification. If you change the “rules” on communion for the remarried, you could just as easily argue for a change to any of our beliefs about Christ, Mary, the Church, etc. We could be arguing about whether it’s fair for us to require converts from Islam to accept Christ as the Son of God, since that would be uncomfortable for them. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere, and defined doctrines are the line that can **never **be crossed.

This is why we have Protestant churches today, BTW. These sorts of doctrinal changes are what used to be referred to as heresies.

And even though the Church will ultimately decide *against *admitting the unrepentant remarried to the Sacraments, it’s still important to take note of, and counter (with respect), the voices that argue contrary to reason within our local parishes or even within the Magesterium.

Trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church is right and good, but there have to be those who work with the Holy Spirit by defending doctrine when it comes under attack. St Augustine didn’t simply sit back and listen to the Arians spread their misguided notions of who Christ is. Was that because he didn’t trust the Holy Spirit? Of course not. He was simply an instrument that the Holy Spirit used to guide the Church away from heresy.
 
mgoforth said:
The previous poster didn’t miss the point at all. The point is that disciplines, such as abstaining from meat, fasting, etc can be changed when necessary because they serve to reinforce the doctrines of the Faith. Things like the absolute indissolubility of marriage can never change because they are doctrines - they are a crucial part of the Faith itself. All doctrine is equally off-limits for modification. If you change the “rules” on communion for the remarried, you could just as easily argue for a change to any of our beliefs about Christ, Mary, the Church, etc. We could be arguing about whether it’s fair for us to require converts from Islam to accept Christ as the Son of God, since that would be uncomfortable for them. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere, and defined doctrines are the line that can **never **be crossed.

This is why we have Protestant churches today, BTW. These sorts of doctrinal changes are what used to be referred to as heresies.

And even though the Church will ultimately decide *against *admitting the unrepentant remarried to the Sacraments, it’s still important to take note of, and counter (with respect), the voices that argue contrary to reason within our local parishes or even within the Magesterium.

Trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church is right and good, but there have to be those who work with the Holy Spirit by defending doctrine when it comes under attack. St Augustine didn’t simply sit back and listen to the Arians spread their misguided notions of who Christ is. Was that because he didn’t trust the Holy Spirit? Of course not. He was simply an instrument that the Holy Spirit used to guide the Church away from heresy.
Click to expand...
Some argue that if you allow Communion for the divorced and civilly married that it wouldn’t change the indissoubility of marriage.
 
mgoforth said:
The previous poster didn’t miss the point at all. The point is that disciplines, such as abstaining from meat, fasting, etc can be changed when necessary because they serve to reinforce the doctrines of the Faith. Things like the absolute indissolubility of marriage can never change because they are doctrines - they are a crucial part of the Faith itself. All doctrine is equally off-limits for modification. If you change the “rules” on communion for the remarried, you could just as easily argue for a change to any of our beliefs about Christ, Mary, the Church, etc. We could be arguing about whether it’s fair for us to require converts from Islam to accept Christ as the Son of God, since that would be uncomfortable for them. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere, and defined doctrines are the line that can **never **be crossed.

This is why we have Protestant churches today, BTW. These sorts of doctrinal changes are what used to be referred to as heresies.

And even though the Church will ultimately decide *against *admitting the unrepentant remarried to the Sacraments, it’s still important to take note of, and counter (with respect), the voices that argue contrary to reason within our local parishes or even within the Magesterium.

Trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church is right and good, but there have to be those who work with the Holy Spirit by defending doctrine when it comes under attack. St Augustine didn’t simply sit back and listen to the Arians spread their misguided notions of who Christ is. Was that because he didn’t trust the Holy Spirit? Of course not. He was simply an instrument that the Holy Spirit used to guide the Church away from heresy.
Click to expand...
AMEN, God Bless, Memaw
 
mgoforth said:
Trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church is right and good, but there have to be those who work with the Holy Spirit by defending doctrine when it comes under attack. St Augustine didn’t simply sit back and listen to the Arians spread their misguided notions of who Christ is. Was that because he didn’t trust the Holy Spirit? Of course not. He was simply an instrument that the Holy Spirit used to guide the Church away from heresy.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Some people argue that everything must be right just because they are guided by the Holy Spirit. But that argument fails on at least two counts: (1) the Protestants also believe the Holy Spirit guides them; and (2) it doesn’t take into account that God has both a positive will and a permissive will. Only repeated teachings can lead toward more certainty of the former. (I believe this is even stated somewhere to that effect in the Vatican II documents.)
 
_Abyssinia said:
Some argue that if you allow Communion for the divorced and civilly married that it wouldn’t change the indissoubility of marriage.
Click to expand...
The fault behind this line of thinking is that you are undermining one sacrament to promote another. If there is value in sacraments, then all the sacraments are valued, not just one or two.

Many are already receiving in the state of mortal sin. They have in fact admitted it. I can’t see how “allowing” this to happen can be advantageous to one’s soul.
 
ProVobis said:
Not to throw cold water on your rather extended analysis but these have been on the table since the excommunication against divorced Catholics was lifted in 1970, if not before. …
Click to expand...
Hello,

Catholics who attempted marriage before a non-Catholic minister/official were subject to excommunication (cf. 1917 Code, c. 2319; Third Council of Baltimore). The penalty in the Code was abrogated in 1970 (in Matrimonia mixta, n. 15) while the penalty from the plenary Council was repealed on Oct. 22, 1977.

Penalties from Baltimore: Baltimore not only laid down an automatic excommunication for any and all Catholics who attempt marriage before a non-Catholic official (as was later stated in the 1917 Code) but also said all who divorce and attempt a second marriage are excommunicated, too. Only rarely would the second group not fall into the first. I guess people could lie to the priest about a prior marriage and slip through the banns and have the second wedding before a priest (I’ve seen it myself, in at least one case…). It was this unique penalty which was voided in 1977.

I don’t think there was ever an excommunication for divorce alone–at least not an “automatic” one.

Dan
 
_Abyssinia said:
Some argue that if you allow Communion for the divorced and civilly married that it wouldn’t change the indissoubility of marriage.
Click to expand...
Christ, however, did not make that argument. He made three clear and explicit statements that apply to this situation:

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery"

So clearly divorce followed by remarriage is sinful. Neither Christ, nor the Apostles, nor any of the Church Fathers or the saints have ever said otherwise.

"Neither do I condemn you"

Forgiveness is readily available for those who are divorced and remarried…

"Go and sin no more"

…**IF **they repent of their sin and take steps to change their lives.

The arugment that we should admit the remarried to the Sacraments, without first requiring them to give up their sins, means that either the first or thrid of Jesus’ statements above would have to be false.

Either:
  • Remarriage is not a sin - I’m not sure of any way that He could have made Himself clearer that it is a serious sin.
  • Sins can be forgiven without repentence. If so, then why do we need to “sin no more”? Why are we called to “take up our cross” or “deny ourselves daily”? Those things are hard, and I don’t think Christ is a sadist who likes to see us suffer for no reason.
Logically it can’t be any other way. Not what people want to hear, but the Truth shall set us free.
 
Justin_Swanton said:
A little query. This part of the interview:

The Pope continued: “Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? ‘No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?’ The testimony of a man and a woman saying ‘my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on’. Anything more Christian than that?

Am I correct in paraphrasing it as follows:

Remarried divorcees can and should be godparents since they do not give a bad example to their godchildren. They do not give a bad example because, even though in a non-sacramental union, they have overcome sin. They have overcome sin because they realise they made a mistake in entering into an illicit union in the first place, and the fact that they realise they have made a mistake and wish they could do something about it (except actually end their present adulterous union) is enough for it no longer to be sinful.

If this paraphrase is accurate, does anyone realise what kind of a nuke it is?
Click to expand...
How does he know this is what they will teach? Really?
 
mgoforth said:
Christ, however, did not make that argument. He made three clear and explicit statements that apply to this situation:

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery"

So clearly divorce followed by remarriage is sinful. Neither Christ, nor the Apostles, nor any of the Church Fathers or the saints have ever said otherwise.

"Neither do I condemn you"

Forgiveness is readily available for those who are divorced and remarried…

"Go and sin no more"

…**IF **they repent of their sin and take steps to change their lives.

The arugment that we should admit the remarried to the Sacraments, without first requiring them to give up their sins, means that either the first or thrid of Jesus’ statements above would have to be false.

Either:
  • Remarriage is not a sin - I’m not sure of any way that He could have made Himself clearer that it is a serious sin.
  • Sins can be forgiven without repentence. If so, then why do we need to “sin no more”? Why are we called to “take up our cross” or “deny ourselves daily”? Those things are hard, and I don’t think Christ is a sadist who likes to see us suffer for no reason.
Logically it can’t be any other way. Not what people want to hear, but the Truth shall set us free.
Click to expand...
By your reasoning annulments in general would undermine the indissolubility of marriage also since Jesus didn’t make any allowance for it in Scripture.

Also remember that what is being discussed is not a change to any general rule. It is a process of recognising the fruits of the Spirit which can be discerned by the Church, in determining validity of a second marriage beyond the scope of the current annulment process. The Church also uses this avenue in determining the validity of a Saint when she recognises as an ultimate confirmation, miracles that occur in a deceased persons name. It is fitting that Pope Francis makes space for this question in the synod since it is a very Ignatian factor in recognising the presence of God with us… discerning the fruits of the spirit in our lives.

Whether anything significant will develop from examination of the issue will be seen, but it is at the very least an opportunity for people to learn more about recognising the fruits of the spirit in their own lives in determining their path.
 
LongingSoul said:
By your reasoning annulments in general would undermine the indissolubility of marriage also since Jesus didn’t make any allowance for it in Scripture.
Click to expand...
That’s not my reasoning at all. Annulments are not Catholic divorce - they are a decision by the Church that a valid marriage never actually occurred in the first place. Therefore, nothing is ended when the two parties go their separate ways. Also, Christ didn’t need to write all of Canon Law for us. He gave us the basics, which are non-negotiable, and then left it up to His Church to handle specific variations. But that doesn’t mean the specific solutions can undermine the doctrinal foundations. Again, he clearly says divorce and remarriage is sinful. Persons who receive a decree of nullity were never married, therefore they can’t get divorced (except in the eyes of the state, which doesn’t matter much) and can’t be RE-married. This is all very logical.
Also remember that what is being discussed is not a change to any general rule. It is a process of recognising the fruits of the Spirit which can be discerned by the Church, in determining validity of a second marriage beyond the scope of the current annulment process. The Church also uses this avenue in determining the validity of a Saint when she recognises as an ultimate confirmation, miracles that occur in a deceased persons name. It is fitting that Pope Francis makes space for this question in the synod since it is a very Ignatian factor in recognising the presence of God with us… discerning the fruits of the spirit in our lives.
Click to expand...
I’ll need some help from you to understand how something Jesus defined as adultery can be compared with the canonization of saints…?? :confused:

I also fail to see how someone turning their back on the wedding vows they professed in front of God - “till death do us part” - can possibly be labeled “fruits of the spirit”. Putting lipstick on this pig with nice sounding phrases simply doesn’t change the underlying realities of the sins committed.
 
The following section of the interview is also of interest:
  • What do you think about the solution put forward by the German cardinal Walter Kasper?
  • Kasper´s address to the cardinals last February included five chapters, four of them are a jewel, about the purpose of marriage, open, in depth. The fifth is the question of what do we do with divorcees who have remarried; they are part of our congregation after all. Kasper´s hypothesis is not his own. Let´s look into that. What happened? Some theologians feared such assumptions and that is keeping our heads down. Kasper urged us to seek hypothesis, i.e., he made the first move. And some panicked. And went as far as to say: Communion, never. Only spiritual Communion. And tell me, don´t we need the grace of God to receive spiritual communion? That´s why spiritual communion obtained the fewest votes in the relatio synodi, because nobody was in agreement. Those for it, because there´s not much to it, voted against it; and those who are not for it and would rather go for the other one, because it´s not worth it.
To sum up: the opponents of Sacramental Communion are panicking, and in their panic are not paying attention to their own reasoning, shooting themselves in the foot by proposing spiritual Communion, since spiritual Communion, like Sacramental Communion, requires a state of grace. If one can receive the former, why not the latter?
 
Justin_Swanton said:
To sum up: the opponents of Sacramental Communion are panicking, and in their panic are not paying attention to their own reasoning, shooting themselves in the foot by proposing spiritual Communion, since spiritual Communion, like Sacramental Communion, requires a state of grace.
Click to expand...
Not true.

Or are you stating their argument?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top