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.
I have made that observation; however, the most vocal and obsessive is Cardinal Burke, who never misses an opportunity to “push” his alarm publicly. No need to mention the three books his group has published and promoted.

That is not for you, nor I, nor the many opponents posting in a public board to determine. Why are these person unwilling to await the decision of the Holy Spirit, by striving ever so hard to ratify or interpret that decision beforehand?
Surely if people support that the divorced and civilly remarried should receive Communion, shouldn’t we be hearing more of case being made? Perhaps a case is being made and I just haven’t seen it. There is an article at Religion News Service regarding different ways they could receive Communion but you have to be a member to see that article.

If people support the Communion proposal we should be hearing more of an argument being made to show how can be happen, and how if they believe it can be happen, how it would not conflict with Church doctrine.
 
If people support the Communion proposal we should be hearing more of an argument being made to show how it can happen, and how if they believe it can be happen, how it would not conflict with Church doctrine.
People generally are not supporting the proposal, but rather more importantly, they are urging over and again to await the decision of the Holy Spirit and Pope Francis, his lawful messenger. I do not believe it is appropriate for clergy or laity to anticipate the outcome by publicly stirring up controversy, which is akin to rebellion. We are simply not equipped theologically to theorize about this here at CAF, and it is really becoming a sore spot, when folks put forth texts saying “show me how.”

As proof of how displeasing this is to God, I ask that folks read the book of Numbers, Chapters 16 and 17. Moses and Aaron were the only lawful authority, yet others in the ranks (Korah and his schismatic band) contested it publicly, and we read that they were utterly destroyed in punishment. The only one appointed to proclaim God’s will in this matter is Pope Francis, after considering the many arguments of those chosen to assist him prior to rendering that decision.
 
As I pointed out earlier, the Church indeed deems it sinful for someone to deny God or convert even if a gun is pointed to their head. Therefore, I’m confused why it wouldn’t be a sin to not live up to the examples of the “martyrs of purity.”
When you deny God like that you consent.yes, they are holding a gun to your head but they aren’t moving your lips and making you say words
Anyone who is raped is forced into it and the victim is not at fault.
 
An annulment is not based on emotions, but facts! While emotions are a part of the persons life, the annulment is based on facts. I walked several people thru their annulment process and also have read up on it a lot. It was a healing process as well. I’m afraid many people do not even try because they hear so many “horror stories.” Our Holy Father asked us to help them, not scare the tar out of them, or discourage them! God Bless. Memaw
It should take into account that these are people with lives and not numbers and should be more gentle and merciful than it is.

How am I scaring people away from the process by reporting on an incident that I know happened? I’m sorry but there is a chance that the annulment process won’t be healing, that it will bring up old wounds, that an ex-spouse may contest the proceedings, that a case might be delayed for years, or that a slam dunk case might be rejected. What ends up hurting people more is when the process is sugarcoated and then they run into one of these problems. I would certainly feel misled. And Pope Francis thinks that the process doesn’t work very well, which is why he is reforming it.
 
People generally are not supporting the proposal, but rather more importantly, they are urging over and again to await the decision of the Holy Spirit and Pope Francis, his lawful messenger. I do not believe it is appropriate for clergy or laity to anticipate the outcome by publicly stirring up controversy, which is akin to rebellion. We are simply not equipped theologically to theorize about this here at CAF, and it is really becoming a sore spot, when folks put forth texts saying “show me how.”

As proof of how displeasing this is to God, I ask that folks read the book of Numbers, Chapters 16 and 17. Moses and Aaron were the only lawful authority, yet others in the ranks (Korah and his schismatic band) contested it publicly, and we read that they were utterly destroyed in punishment. The only one appointed to proclaim God’s will in this matter is Pope Francis, after considering the many arguments of those chosen to assist him prior to rendering that decision.
Do you think I am just talking about laypeople and people on this forum? I also mean outside this forum, laypeople in favour of the Communion proposal making the argument, but also any Clergy in favour. Some Cardinals have come out in favour, I am just curious on what base their position on, and how they would defend that position. Laypeople and Clergy against the proposal have written, spoke and explained why they think the proposal wouldn’t be the right direction for the Church to take and if there are people that disagree, I would like to see them explain.
 
As I pointed out earlier, the Church indeed deems it sinful for someone to deny God or convert even if a gun is pointed to their head. Therefore, I’m confused why it wouldn’t be a sin to not live up to the examples of the “martyrs of purity.”
Then, it seems, you do not understand Catholic teaching at all. 🤷 There is no sin if one does not consent. Going throught the motions at gun point, is not consent.
 
Then, it seems, you do not understand Catholic teaching at all. 🤷 There is no sin if one does not consent. Going throught the motions at gun point, is not consent.
Actually it is. It’s probably done with less magic and less thought but apostasy is still wrong
 
Do you think I am just talking about laypeople and people on this forum? I also mean outside this forum, laypeople in favour of the Communion proposal making the argument, but also any Clergy in favour. Some Cardinals have come out in favour, I am just curious on what base their position on, and how they would defend that position. Laypeople and Clergy against the proposal have written, spoke and explained why they think the proposal wouldn’t be the right direction for the Church to take and if there are people that disagree, I would like to see them explain.
The theology of marriage has shifted over the years from a legalistic or juridicial concept to a personalist or relational concept. That has meant that the ontological character of marriage which the Catholic sacrament enshrines is perhaps clearer. Like shifts happen in medical treatments with the advent new understandings about the body and how it functions those new understandings about the nature and character of marriage are calling to look at the treatments for better healing and health. Pope Francis has instigated this process of examination on that basis I’m supposing.
 
The theology of marriage has shifted over the years from a legalistic or juridicial concept to a personalist or relational concept. That has meant that the ontological character of marriage which the Catholic sacrament enshrines is perhaps clearer. Like shifts happen in medical treatments with the advent new understandings about the body and how it functions those new understandings about the nature and character of marriage are calling to look at the treatments for better healing and health. Pope Francis has instigated this process of examination on that basis I’m supposing.
Wait you think people who are divorced and remarried should receive communion? Why?
 
Do you think I am just talking about laypeople and people on this forum? I also mean outside this forum, laypeople in favour of the Communion proposal making the argument, but also any Clergy in favour.
Did you not see my words?: "I do not believe it is appropriate for clergy or laity to anticipate the outcome by publicly stirring up controversy, which is akin to rebellion "

For those who are expressing their opinion “outside this forum,” is rather irrelevant, since we have no way knowing their unexpressed views.
Some Cardinals have come out in favor, I am just curious on what base their position on, and how they would defend that position.
Again, we do not know, since their views are generally not public during this interim. It is foolish to second-guess any one of them, except those who are most prolific in public outcry. OTOH, we do know that there is a majority who voted favorably in the synod (although not quite 2/3’s) and this would indicate a direction that may follow next year. What they would base their decision is unknown at this point in time, but I do expect there will be a pastoral outcome that does not contradict doctrine.
Some Laypeople and Clergy against the proposal have written, spoke and explained why they think the proposal wouldn’t be the right direction for the Church to take and if there are people that disagree, I would like to see them explain.
Why? All it is at this point is a personal opinion, which will have absolutely no bearing on the Pope’s decision. Shall I repeat myself? Why aren’t folks willing to await the final direction, but insist having their worrisome and difficult questions theorized ahead of time?
 
The theology of marriage has shifted over the years from a legalistic or juridicial concept to a personalist or relational concept. That has meant that the ontological character of marriage which the Catholic sacrament enshrines is perhaps clearer. Like shifts happen in medical treatments with the advent new understandings about the body and how it functions those new understandings about the nature and character of marriage are calling to look at the treatments for better healing and health. Pope Francis has instigated this process of examination on that basis I’m supposing.
The issue is should divorce and remarried people receive Jesus through communion. Jesus has already expressed that divorce and remarriage is adultery.
 
The issue is should divorce and remarried people receive Jesus through communion. Jesus has already expressed that divorce and remarriage is adultery.
Yes, and Jesus also said he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. 🤷
The literal translation would suggest an impossibility that the Church has determined is not preclusive through Her interpretation of “who” can be saved, though unbaptized, and though lacking in belief in Christ. Same scenario - the Church alone can interpret through the Spirit, the literal words of scripture.
 
Yes, and Jesus also said he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. 🤷
The literal translation would suggest an impossibility that the Church has determined is not preclusive through Her interpretation of “who” can be saved, though unbaptized, and though lacking in belief in Christ. Same scenario - the Church alone can interpret through the Spirit, the literal words of scripture.
The Church has always been against civil divorce and remarriage
 
The theology of marriage has shifted over the years from a legalistic or juridicial concept to a personalist or relational concept. That has meant that the ontological character of marriage which the Catholic sacrament enshrines is perhaps clearer. Like shifts happen in medical treatments with the advent new understandings about the body and how it functions those new understandings about the nature and character of marriage are calling to look at the treatments for better healing and health. Pope Francis has instigated this process of examination on that basis I’m supposing.
Catholic teaching on marriage is not like ever changing medical treatment. Church passes down doctrine and has done throughout the ages and if the Catholic Church had shifted on issues like medical treatment shifts with time, the Church would embrace a lot more of the world than it currently does.
 
Yes, and Jesus also said he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. 🤷
The literal translation would suggest an impossibility that the Church has determined is not preclusive through Her interpretation of “who” can be saved, though unbaptized, and though lacking in belief in Christ. Same scenario - the Church alone can interpret through the Spirit, the literal words of scripture.
From the council of Trent
thecounciloftrent.com/ch24.htm

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema.
 
The Church has always been against civil divorce and remarriage
Well, I give you A for effort, along with your supporters who make this claim. In essence, I agree, but in the end, only the Church will decide this issue, and if there is a way of implementing a pastoral solution, it will be made clear by the Holy Spirit. Agree? No need to quote one or several documents, since the Spirit has His own guidance in this matter.
 
Well, I give you A for effort, along with your supporters who make this claim. In essence, I agree, but in the end, only the Church will decide this issue, and if there is a way of implementing a pastoral solution, it will be made clear by the Holy Spirit. Agree? No need to quote one or several documents, since the Spirit has His own guidance in this matter.
The Church has already decided this issue.
 
The Church has already decided this issue.
[Sigh] :rolleyes:

For now, your pontifical assertions are correct at face value, but in the end, Pope Francis may overrule you, if such means many be determined by the Synod. 😉
 
firstthings.com/article/2015/01/between-two-synods

Here are parts of a new, excellent essay by George Weigel (I would highly recommend reading the whole thing):

"That a thorough examination of the crisis (of marriage), and the celebration of Christian marriage as the answer to it, didn’t happen to the degree one might have hoped. And that was in no small part the doing of German bishops led by retired Cardinal Walter Kasper, in league with the synod general secretary, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who seemed determined to push the question of Holy Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to the front of the line in the synod’s debates. The German fixation on this issue was in one sense an expression of self-absorption with the pastoral problems of a sclerotic German Church, which are indisputably grave. Ten months before the synod met, I asked a knowledgeable observer of German Catholic affairs why the German Catholic leadership insisted on revisiting the issue of Holy Communion for those in civil second marriages, which most of the rest of the world Church thought had been sufficiently aired in the 1980 synod on the family, and which seemed to have been settled by the reaffirmation of the Church’s traditional teaching and practice in St. John Paul II’s 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio (The Community of the Family) and in the 1983 code of canon law. I got a one-word answer: “money.”

“Prior to the synod, extensive critiques of Cardinal Kasper’s proposals for allowing divorced Catholics in civil second marriages to be restored to the Church’s full eucharistic communion were published in the theological quarterly Nova et Vetera and in a book of essays, Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, whose authors included five scholar-cardinals. In both cases, the responses to the Kasper proposals were academically serious and respectful in tone. Yet Kasper, in replying to his critics (primarily in press interviews), failed to sustain the debate at the level of seriousness it deserved, dismissing those who had found grave biblical, patristic, theological, canonical, and pastoral problems with his proposals as doctrinal and scriptural fundamentalists.”

“The vibrant parts of Catholicism in the developed world are those that have lived the dynamic orthodoxy displayed in the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI; the crumbling parts of European Catholicism—which is to say, most of western European Catholicism—are those that have bent to the winds of the zeitgeist and have fudged the Church’s doctrinal and moral boundaries, imagining that to be the “spirit of Vatican II.” Yet there was Kasper, in league with synod general secretary Baldisseri, promoting a further fudging of the boundaries, and doing so in ways that seemed to the majority of synod fathers (the media spin notwithstanding) to be in flat contradiction to the teaching of the Lord himself.”

“Africa’s Moment. Not surprisingly, the proposals pressed by the Germans and their allies at synod 2014 were presented in much of the mainstream media as something bold, fresh, and innovative, when in fact they were rather stale and shopworn, remnants of a vision of “progressive” Catholicism that had, by any evangelical criterion, manifestly failed in Europe and elsewhere. What was new at the extraordinary synod—and what helped make it “extraordinary” in the ordinary sense of that word—was the emergence of African Catholicism as a major factor in shaping the future of global Catholicism. African synod fathers were among the leaders in challenging the Kasper proposals, arguing forcefully that the Christian idea of marriage had come to their cultures as a liberating force, especially for women. They also suggested, implicitly if not explicitly, that bishops representing dying local churches ought not be exporting Western decadence to the Global South, where Catholicism was growing exponentially by preaching the truths of the Gospel with compassion but also without compromise. This took courage, and not only because it exposed the Africans to charges of being culturally backward (or, as Cardinal Kasper inelegantly put it, of being in thrall to “taboos”). It also took courage because a lot of the Church in Africa is paid for by German Catholic development agencies, which are extraordinarily well off and quite generous, thanks to the Kirchensteuer.”
 
(Continued)

"Success? In his closing address to the synod, Pope Francis declared the synod a success—which it was, if not precisely in the way the synod minority (the supporters of the Kasper proposals and the Forte interim report) have subsequently claimed. A robust debate was held in spite of the difficult circumstances created by the synod general secretariat. Out of that debate emerged a clear consensus in favor of the Catholic Church’s classic teaching on the nature of the human person, the morality of love, the nature of marriage, and the need to combine truth and mercy in proclaiming what John Paul II called the Gospel of life.

The dynamic and orthodox leaders of the Church today—the men who successfully foiled the attempt to divert synod 2014 down the path charted by the interim report, and whose interventions accounted for the much improved final report and the synod’s “Message” to the world—are all men of Vatican II, not men against Vatican II. They read the council through the magisterium of John Paul II and *Benedict XVI, which they see as offering an authoritative interpretation of its teaching. They want that authoritative interpretation deployed in service to what John Paul II called the new evangelization—which Pope Francis, in the 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, has made the grand strategy of his own pontificate. They know that the new evangelization is not advanced by tactical, and still less by strategic, compromises with the zeitgeist on the indissolubility of marriage and the morality of human love. And they are not prepared to take instructions on how to advance the new evangelization from Catholic leaders in Germany, Italy, England, or elsewhere who have manifestly failed in their evangelical task.

At the synod, it was suggested that, as a matter of pastoral strategy, the Church should approach people “where they are” on that ladder of love, no matter how low the rung. That’s certainly true, and indeed always has been true. But the Church approaches people “where they are” on the ladder in order to invite them to climb higher, with the help of God’s grace mediated through the Church’s sacraments. Finding worthy elements in irregular marital situations or irregular sexual relationships is not a matter of endorsing those irregularities, but of inviting people to ascend the ladder. This means helping them understand the fullness of the good and encouraging them to seek it, with the help of grace. The challenge here is as old as Paul’s efforts on the Areopagus, and it is not going to go away. But discussion of how to invite men and women to climb higher on the ladder of love will not be advanced by appeals to compassion that effectively detach compassion from truth, or by accommodating contemporary shibboleths about sexuality in any of its expressions.

**One of the standard media tropes of synod 2014 coverage, too often drawn from unfortunate comments by synod fathers, was the difference between “doctrine” and “pastoral practice.” The two are obviously not the same. But it is just as obvious that certain ecclesial practices, such as defining the conditions that constitute (or impede) worthiness to receive Holy Communion, are closely linked to settled doctrine: the doctrine, drawn from the Lord himself, that marriage is indissoluble, and the implication of that doctrine for the proper reception of Holy Communion, which is drawn from St. Paul: Whoever “eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

Now that it is abundantly clear (to everyone except Cardinal Kasper, it seems) that there is no consensus possible in favor of the Kasper proposals for changing the Church’s practice in this matter (because doing so would constitute an impossible change in doctrine), the discussion over the next year should focus on adjustments of the canonical processes by which marriages are judged null, and on the truths about the Holy Eucharist and the sacrament of penance that are at the root of the Church’s current—and future—understanding and practice concerning worthiness to receive Holy Communion.
**
This may require certain adjustments in the senior personnel of the synod general secretariat, but the basic change needed is one of attitude. The synod secretariat must understand that it exists to serve the synod fathers, not to manipulate the process and drive the discussion down a path toward certain predetermined conclusions. The massive resistance demonstrated by the synod fathers on October 16 to exactly that kind of manipulation was, in fact, a very healthy development in the still-young tradition of regular church-wide synods, for it demonstrated that the bishops took quite *seriously the pope’s call for a reclamation of synodality and collegiality."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top