Doctrinal wars? Both sides fire over Communion for divorced, remarried

[Seraphim73]

Also, please see the Catholic encyclopedia on divorce:

3 (b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice

“The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church.”

"The practice of the faithful was not indeed always in perfect accord with the doctrine of the Church. On account of defective morality, there are to be found regulations of particular synods which permitted unjustifiable concessions. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed.

and 3 (c) Laxer Admissions and their Correction

“Whilst the popes constantly rejected absolute divorce in all cases, we find some of the Frankish synods of the eighth century which allowed it in certain acute cases. In this regard the Council of Verberie (752) and Compiègne (757) erred especially.” (These are local synods, not ecumenical synods)

“If these (local) canons were really intended in any other sense, then they are contrary to the general doctrine of the Church.”

Ok well the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in the early 20th century. Not exactly an extant source. And even if you could prove that the Latin Church considered it a grave abuse during the first millennium no one can make the case that it was a Church dividing issue because the Churches were manifestly in Eucharistic communion. Certainly if the pope felt the Eastern Churches were teaching rank heresy that would have justified breaking communion. That never happened. Even during the time of the so called reunion councils of Lyons and Ferrara-Florence the issue of remarriage was never mentioned. So the practice was not an obstacle to union anywhere from the 5th century to the 15th.

 

[1newcatholic]

The only way I know of to enable communion for the divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity, is to make obtaining a declaration of nullity a lot easier. The Church has no authority to overturn a command of Jesus.

Please show me the passage where Jesus says that it is impossible to receive communion if you are divorced and remarried.

I direct your attention to the passage about forgiveness, seventy times over.

 

[runningdude]

I have to admit, after thinking about it, that prospect struck me as a little humorous. I can’t imagine the Church going from a position of: “The Church has no authority to end a valid, consummated marriage,” to “No 4th marriages, ever!”

That is a funny way of thinking of it, but not quite accurate. …

So Jesus got it wrong? Matthew seems pretty clear on the matter to me. Please explain under what circumstances Jesus can be over-ruled in an area where he directly instructed us!

The bishop never presumed to end a valid preceding marriage, but rather gave dispensation, more so, to live in apparent sin under the color of a second marriage.

Presumably, this dispensation might allow a second marriage to be valid, if the first were invalid; however, no explicit proof of invalidly was required. The second ceremony replaces the joyous prayers of the first marriage, with prayers of penance and sorrow for failing to keep united that which God had joined.

Informally, it might be described as a funeral to the first marriage.

fatherdylanjames.blogspot.com/2014/02/divorce-and-remarriage-oikonomia-and.html

 

[1newcatholic]

Yeah, this is good. But all that really matters is the apostolic exhortation that comes out after all of this. And all that really matters for the apostolic exhortation is what the Pope thinks, and that is what is worrying.

I can’t even imagine a whole year-and-a-half more of this

Why do you even care who the church chooses to forgive and who the church gives the Eucharist to?

 

[runningdude]

I understand that this practice currently exists in the Orthodox Church, but I was unaware that it has historically existed in the Catholic Church (i.e. in Western Tradition). Could you point me to some reading? Thanks!

I am not sure if it were present in Western Tradition, and I am uncertain how far back it goes in the Eastern Tradition. However, prior to the East-West Split, both were the Catholic Church.

 

[Seraphim73]

I am not sure if it were present in Western Tradition, and I am uncertain how far back it goes in the Eastern Tradition. However, prior to the East-West Split, both were the Catholic Church.

There are canons and writings from at least the early 5th century prescribing penances for remarriage or mentioning the possibility of it.

 

[Ed_Silvia]

I can imagine the headlines:

Francis, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives.

 

[Seraphim73]

The bishop never presumed to end a valid preceding marriage, but rather gave dispensation, more so, to live in apparent sin under the color of a second marriage.

I don’t think that is an accurate representation at all. After their penance was complete they were admitted as full members of the Church. Certainly none of the canons say anything about allowing people “living in sin” to partake of the Eucharist.

 

[Seraphim73]

I can imagine the headlines:

Francis, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives.

I think you missed you calling in life.

 

[Colorad007]

Reading this gives me hope. I just started my journey with my husband and daughter to join the Catholic Church via the RCIA process. I was completely disheartened and defeated, to find out that I might not be able to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Easter Vigil due to my husband’s divorce from his first marriage (due to her infidelity). While I understand what the annulment is for, I still felt persecuted because all I have done is kept my vow to my husband of 19 years. Then to hear that it can be a long arduous process (as well as very costly), when all it takes is a phone call to her (I have spoken with her about this and she is more than willing to explain her actions to the priest) is even more news to put my soul in turmoil and feel like I am being punished for finally coming home to the Catholic faith.

I can appreciate how difficult that must be. I’ll pray for a quick resolution to this issue.

Hopefully you can appreciate why you are unable to receive Communion. It is a hard truth, but it is still the truth, that you cannot be truly married to your husband until and unless his first marriage is annulled. That is a very basic truth of the faith to which you are, as you say, coming home. That is part of the Catholic faith that you will profess when you are received into the Church. Even if you could receive Holy Communion, your situation would still be irregular. You would still be living in a situation that is not what God desires for you until that situation is regularized. I am not even totally sure how you are able to be received into the Church without having this marriage issue resolved, since you presumably may not make your general confession so long as you are in that irregular situation. You might want to ask your priest about that–I don’t really know the details, obviously. The point is this: seeking an annulment, no matter what it takes, is definitely worth it. God has called you to be a Catholic and you are doing the right thing by answering that call. Whatever hardship is involved in that, I assure that it is worth it.

Keep in mind that you could actually receive Holy Communion at the Easter Vigil. But that would require the serious sacrifice of living as brother and sister so long as the annulment process hasn’t been resolved in favor of an annulment. Just keep that in mind.

Again, I hope that the process for you is not as painful as you are anticipating, and I assure you of my prayers.

 

[runningdude]

Why do you even care who the church chooses to forgive and who the church gives the Eucharist to?

Because we as Devout Catholics care about the souls of others, and worry about what effect “relaxing” the “rules” regarding the reception of the Eucharist might have.

 

[Colorad007]

I am in the same boat as Loralael and Seraphim,
My husband and I have been married 21 years. We have a great marriage.
My husband was married very young, and his first wife left him over his objections(due to no-fault divorce!) he remarried me three years later. I have never been married before. He was a devout Baptist, me had become a ELCA Lutheran from evangelicalism. We now belong to the WELS Lutheran Church. Due to my pro-life pro family beliefs I found myself reading a lot about Roman Catholicism and was very drawn to the Catholic Church (although there are still things I disagree with. Hubby was too, which is a miracle really. However I discovered about the annulment process not only being long and arduous but also costly. As we have two boys I felt it was certainly better to stay together and raise them in our current church in a Christian home. I couldn’t see how God would want us to separate.
I do agree that divorce and remarriage has been seriously abused in our anything- goes society but I’m liking the Orthodox view on the matter, which is that there are exceptions.
The closest Orthodox church is over 200 miles away from our house, though.

The point isn’t that divorce and remarriage are abused in our society, which implies that they have a proper use . The Church sometimes allows for civil divorce to help protect abused spouses or very rare situations like that, but that marriage still exists even if the state won’t recognize it any longer. The point is that divorce is utterly a social construct that the Church cannot recognize for obvious sacramental reasons (although civil divorces are actually required for annulments–again, for obvious reasons). Christ Himself said that marriage is forever. He didn’t say that it should only be used in certain instances, as many Protestants believe today and some Jews believed in Jesus’ day. It is indissoluble by its very nature. Society and even many Christian communities recognize divorces and remarriages, which is a scandal because it mocks our Lord’s own words and totally undercuts the whole of Christian sacramental theology.

I’ll also point out to you that the Church very rarely asks couples in your situation to physically separate. Couples like this are asked to abstain from sexual relations, but more than that, they are instructed to regularize their situations. If the synod can find a way to make regularizing those situations easier, then I am definitely on board with that.

But it is important to distinguish that from a wholesale disregard for Christ’s own words and a contortion of basic sacramental theology.

 

[runningdude]

I don’t think that is an accurate representation at all. After their penance was complete they were admitted as full members of the Church. Certainly none of the canons say anything about allowing people “living in sin” to partake of the Eucharist.

It is similar to the situation that a laiticized priest. The priest retains his orders, even though permitted to live a layperson. This does not mean he no longer possesses them. Similarly, a married man retains his first marriage, even if dispensed to marry again.

Even still, because it was a dispensation from immutable natural law, there was still some stigma, even if permitted to otherwise fully participate in the life of the church.

 

[McCall1981]

Why do you even care who the church chooses to forgive and who the church gives the Eucharist to?

Because we as Devout Catholics care about the souls of others, and worry about what effect “relaxing” the “rules” regarding the reception of the Eucharist might have.

What runningdude said.

Why in the world wouldn’t I care?

 

[Seraphim73]

It is similar to the situation that a laiticized priest. The priest retains his orders, even though permitted to live a layperson. This does not mean he no longer possesses them. Similarly, a married man retains his first marriage, even if dispensed to marry again.

Even still, because it was a dispensation from immutable natural law, there was still some stigma, even if permitted to otherwise fully participate in the life of the church.

Those are assertions from a modern perspective. I’m not sure they can be proven from extant sources to be the belief of the Churches during the first millennium.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Are we trying to protect God from whom God created in His Image and… or are we trying to protect who is made in God’s Image and… from God?

 

[runningdude]

It is a historical fact that second and third marriages were allowed. Popes accepted this practice for many many centuries. There are many ancient canons dealing with the issue. So I guess if you want to make that argument I suppose it’s possible that every pope for at least 600 years got it wrong. Not sure how well that jives with modern Catholic teaching.

These were dispensations from the natural law, which is the basis of all morality. While it is true that these dispensations were discerned to be wise in their time, the nature of such dispensations precludes any setting of any precedent.

The Pope did not get this “wrong” for forbidding such dispensations, because their grant was entirely discretionary. Flatly forbidding is neither unmerciful nor arbitrary, because it treats everyone fairly, as no one has any right to a second marriage.

 

[runningdude]

Those are assertions from a modern perspective. I’m not sure they can be proven from extant sources to be the belief of the Churches during the first millennium.

The plain words of the Gospel preclude any interpretation of moral law that allows for remarriage. The source I provided in my first post (though in a revision), supports the notion that there was no understanding of the first marriage being dissolved.

As it stands, it is irrelevant as to whether it was understood differently by the ancient church, because the church has discerned a better understanding of the nature of marriage, at the Council of Trent and elsewhere, that precludes any belief in dissolving a first marriage. It is even possible that this new understanding may preclude granting similar grants of “oikonomia” in regard to second marriages.

The source I previously provided speaks to both points. It is not the full source of my commentary, but a more thorough discussion of the topic than I am able to provide. It can be found here: fatherdylanjames.blogspot.com/2014/02/divorce-and-remarriage-oikonomia-and.html

 

[Seraphim73]

These were dispensations from the natural law, which is the basis of all morality. While it is true that these dispensations were discerned to be wise in their time, the nature of such dispensations precludes any setting of any precedent.

The Pope did not get this “wrong” for forbidding such dispensations, because their grant was entirely discretionary. Flatly forbidding is neither unmerciful nor arbitrary, because it treats everyone fairly, as no one has any right to a second marriage.

I’m not arguing that anyone has a right to a second marriage. I’m simply pointing out that the Catholic Church, through a concession to human weakness, allowed a second and third marriage. That’s just simply a fact of history. So if the upcoming synod decided to go that route there is a very extensive precedent for it.

 

[ProVobis]

I can imagine the headlines:

Francis, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives.

He’s going to allow polygamy too?