Five hundred lay people echo priests’ plea to stand firm on Communion for the remarried

[eightydeuce82]

The question is, are BOTH sides of this issue willing to repent and obey if the synodic ruling does not go their way?

Methinks not, given the continued clamor for female ordination more than a decade after St. JP2 ruled it out (infallibly).

ICXC NIKA

I’m sure sinners will repent but what I’m missing here is there really is only one outcome here that is theologically possible. This situations absolutely clear in scripture and in tradition so there really isn’t going to be a if this side wins or that side wins situation. It is literally impossible to rule in favor of receiving in sin. Like I said above a synod is not a dogmatic council so really it doesn’t matter but in the extremely odd and unfounded situation where it was allowed we have a huge problem.

I completely agree with your SJPII statement! Right on. When are people going to realize that it doesn’t matter how we feel about a situation or what we think is right or wrong.

 

[GEddie]

I’m uncomfortable pointing at those in irregular situations and saying “tough, love it or leave it”. That’s not an act of love.

It’s ok to feel uncomfortable. Nothing about sin should be comforting.

But bending over backward to accommodate people’s happiness while objectively in sin is not “loving”, either.

The Church can be no more loving than our LORD, who never omitted to say “go and sin no more.”

ICXC NIKA.

 

[eightydeuce82]

It’s ok to feel uncomfortable. Nothing about sin should be comforting.

But bending over backward to accommodate people’s happiness while objectively in sin is not “loving”, either.

The Church can be no more loving than our LORD, who never omitted to say “go and sin no more.”

ICXC NIKA.

Like button!

 

[OraLabora]

The question is, are BOTH sides of this issue willing to repent and obey if the synodic ruling does not go their way?

I am. I have no dog in this fight, I’m in a valid marriage.

But I’m with J_Peterson: I believe the issue should be examined by the Synod and I’m not prepared to ask of others what I’m not sure I’d be able to manage myself.

Let the Synod get on with it, I am prepared live with the outcome, but if the current discipline surrounding this doctrine is upheld, I do hope the Church finds some other way to ease the divorced and remarried back into the Church because many now certainly don’t feel very welcome.

 

[Tigg]

I believe those who do not feel welcome might just be the ones who are uncomfortable with the Gospel message itself. Is that a bad thing? NOT! It means a recognition of one’s own failings and is the impetus of wanting to be led into the light. If there is something in one’s life that needs to be examined and changed, that is what “church” is for. The secondary purpose of fellowship and bonhomie can sustain and aid the struggler who really is trying to get it right with God.

 

[Brendan]

Let the Synod get on with it, I am prepared live with the outcome, but if the current discipline surrounding this doctrine is upheld, I do hope the Church finds some other way to ease the divorced and remarried back into the Church because many now certainly don’t feel very welcome.

They are welcome, but the Church calls them in the same way as it calls everyone else, through repentance.

And that is the root of the whole Gospel message

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You see here’s the thing a Synod is not a Dogmatic thing. Not even close. We are bound to dogmatic teachings. The even bigger glaring point is the Pope nor any bishop, cardinal or who ever in the magisterium can change this. It is just not possible. So they can talk all they want.

My understanding is that prohibiting a divorced and married Catholic Couple from receiving Holy Communion, is not dogma, but doctrine. The later can be changed.

I also believe that what the Pope and Cardinals will come up with is that this would not be any divorced and remarried Catholic, but only those couples who are seeking to grow closer to Jesus Christ and come to full union with the Church. Their 1st marriage is nonexistent and the 2nd marriage is successful, except for being outside of the Church.

I also believe they’re looking for the local pastors under instruction from their Bishop, to determine such grounds for allowing a couple to receive.

The marriage tribunals are too disconnected from the people involved, when it comes to the annulment application process.

BTW, I bet they could get 1000 priests and 5 million lay people to go along with allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Numbers make little difference in all of this.

In the end, “His Will Be Done,” is what we desire.

Jim

 

[sps49]

The marriage tribunals are too disconnected from the people involved, when it comes to the annulment application process.

Jim

Really? I felt that it was very connected to my life, and the people involved. I suppose that my trust in the process, and the fact that I had no preconceived expectations on the final ruling, that is to say, I was perfectly willing to accept whatever ruling was issued.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Really? I felt that it was very connected to my life, and the people involved. I suppose that my trust in the process, and the fact that I had no preconceived expectations on the final ruling, that is to say, I was perfectly willing to accept whatever ruling was issued.

I’ve seen the process first hand, and in my dioceses, it’s bureaucratic to the hilt. The tribunal members don’t even meet with the person or couple seeking the annulment, but goes by written documents from the couple and witnesses alone.

They also have a backlog of applications to process, which takes away any level of pastoral care.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

My understanding is that prohibiting a divorced and married Catholic Couple from receiving Holy Communion, is not dogma, but doctrine. The later can be changed.

That is incorrect, you are confusing it with disciplines. Dogmas are actually a subset of doctrine, namely doctrines that are specifically revealed. Other doctrines include those which are not formally revealed, are of necessity connected to a dogma.

But all doctrines are infallible.

Here is a good overview

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

Dogmas require it because they are formally revealed by God. Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church require it, because the infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and morals is itself divinely revealed.

And the Catechism

The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is incorrect, you are confusing it with disciplines. Dogmas are actually a subset of doctrine, namely doctrines that are specifically revealed. Other doctrines include those which are not formally revealed, but true.

But all doctrines are infallible.

Here is a good overview

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

Dogma. Dogmas,are those doctrines solemnly proposed by the Church as formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition.

In other words, they can not be changed.

Doctrines can, such as married priest, eating meat on Friday’s, adding or removing Holy Days of Obligation.

This is how I understand it.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

In other words, they can not be changed.

Doctrines can, such as married priest, eating meat on Friday’s, adding or removing Holy Days of Obligation.

This is how I understand it.

Jim

None of what you listed is a doctrine, those are all disciplines.

Disciplines CAN be changed, doctrines cannot be.

A pope, for example, can change the fasting requirements for Lent, as those are all disciplines. A pope could NOT say that fasting itself is immoral, as that would be a change in doctrine.

 

[Brendan]

Here is the definition of what a doctrine is from the first link

The doctrine(s) of the Church, therefore, are those teachings which must be believed by the faithful. These include 1) dogmas, teachings which the Church has solemnly defined as formally revealed by God, and, 2) other teachings definitively proposed by the Church because they are connected to solemnly defined teachings.

The important point is that ALL doctrines are infallible and cannot be changed. This included both dogmas (which are a type of doctrine) and those that are definitively proposed ( such as what we get from an eccumencial council)

The teachings on the reception of holy communion by a couple who involving a divorce and remarriage without an annulment would be a doctrine, and thus CANNOT be changed.

It is a doctrine in that it is directly based on Scripture and Tradition, and is thus infallible

 

[sps49]

I’ve seen the process first hand, and in my dioceses, it’s bureaucratic to the hilt. The tribunal members don’t even meet with the person or couple seeking the annulment, but goes by written documents from the couple and witnesses alone.

They also have a backlog of applications to process, which takes away any level of pastoral care.

Jim

I understand that you have had a bad experience. Does that mean that all diocese are mistreating applicants?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I understand that you have had a bad experience. Does that mean that all diocese are mistreating applicants?

Not my experience, but that of others close to me, one which included me being asked to write my account of the marriage.

Don’t jump to conclusions on what you think I meant, but just read what I posted.

I didn’t say all dioceses.

That being said, Pope Francis called for the synod for a reason which I’m sure there is a reason.

If it was all going smoothly, there would be no debate over it as we’re seeing today.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Here is the definition of what a doctrine is from the first link

The important point is that ALL doctrines are infallible and cannot be changed. This included both dogmas (which are a type of doctrine) and those that are definitively proposed ( such as what we get from an eccumencial council)

The teachings on the reception of holy communion by a couple who involving a divorce and remarriage without an annulment would be a doctrine, and thus CANNOT be changed.

It is a doctrine in that it is directly based on Scripture and Tradition, and is thus infallible

OK, that makes sense.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

BTW, I think rather than think that the Church will change this “doctrine,” what would be more probable is to say that their could be development about the doctrine which will not only make it more clear, but also help the Church to adhere to the doctrine while helping divorced and remarried Catholics to come back into full union with the Church.

Thoughts ?

Jim

 

[Brendan_64]

BTW, I think rather than think that the Church will change this “doctrine,” what would be more probable is to say that their could be development about the doctrine which will not only make it more clear, but also help the Church to adhere to the doctrine while helping divorced and remarried Catholics to come back into full union with the Church.

Thoughts ?

Jim

How can divorced and remarried come back into full union with the Church without an annulment? Either that or the Church ditches its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

How can divorced and remarried come back into full union with the Church without an annulment? Either that or the Church ditches its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage?

I think what constitutes an annulment would be better understood and could possibly be granted by a pastor over a tribunal.

Pope Benedict XVI stated just before resigning, lack of faith could be grounds for an annulment.

You would never have heard such a thing in the Catholic Church 50 years ago.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

I think what constitutes an annulment would be better understood and could possibly be granted by a pastor over a tribunal.

Pope Benedict XVI stated just before resigning, lack of faith could be grounds for an annulment.

You would never have heard such a thing in the Catholic Church 50 years ago.

Jim

As we’re learning more and more about the psychology of these matters, I’d expect more “grounds” to be listed moving forward. But this does not change the underlying theology.