From EWTN-Thus, those who are actually responsible for the breakup of the marriage and the failure to be reconciled when possible are indeed guilty of sin and have an obligation to repent and confess their sin before receiving Communion, as would any grave sinner.
*“Thus, those who are actually responsible for the breakup of the marriage and the failure to be reconciled when possible are indeed guilty of sin and have an obligation to repent and confess their sin before receiving Communion, as would any grave sinner.” *Show me church teaching or an orthodox catholic source which backs you up.
From EWTN-
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm
Please read Post # 18.Again, what about the vows? Is not consciously breaking a vow made to God (not to mention all of us and the people involved) a sin? Of course it is. Divorce is a sin and a big one at that.
And we could get into what Christ says about divorce (See Mark 10)
Again, from the Catechism:
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. **If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. **Please read Post # 18.
A Catholic (you or any other Catholic) is not allowed to INVENT Church Teaching.
Code:Again, from the Catechism: 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. **If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. **
There is never a need to “explain” the REASON for a Church teaching to anyone.
- Answer my question regarding vows.
Is that a DEMAND? If so, dream on.- An interesting out of context quotation. As pointed out earlier, you must consider the point about “grave offense”.
The point about ‘grave offense’ spoke of natual law, not moral law.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.178
i’ll say a prayer for you too.please help me to calm down: On facebook, my brother totally acts nonchalant about the whole thing. And he changed his status to single. Then, some girl liked that. (for you fb users, you know what i mean by clicking the like button). I have a feeling this is the girl that had been his student. Not only is this girl younger than me, but her profile picture is totally inappropriate. I have been wanting to message her and confront her, asking her what nerve she has to be liking that my brother is single, and asking her if she’s the girl who’s been texting him and such.
Obviously, that’s probably a very stupid thing to do. But it makes me extremely angry at her, and makes me wanna say things that are not catholic, nor loving.
Now, whether or not my brother is committing a mortal sin or not by getting a civil divorce, or whether he is doing things outside his marriage or not, i don’t know, but please pray for him. And thank you all for your support and prayers, for your understanding. :bighanky:
It’s so ugly already, I wouldn’t tangle with her.Would it be non-Catholic of me to PM her asking “who are you to be glad my brother’s single?”
That’s probably as nice as I could make it…
That would probably be the better solution and maybe include the CCC quotations that apply to the situation.It’s so ugly already, I wouldn’t tangle with her.
However, I might PM my brother and ask:
How can you say you’re single when you’re married?
Since you persist in error, I’ll quote it directly againIf the TEACHING makes no sense to you, then that’s the way it is … for YOU.
I have no plans to repeat myself any more times to satisfy the quarrelsome.
You reject the Church Teaching on divorce? Then that’s on you.
catechism said:2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT DIVORCE IS A GOOD.Since you persist in error, I’ll quote it directly again
Notice it says “divorce is immoral”. Word games involving natural vs moral law have no place here. It is a sin unless there is an annulment or abandonment.
And for the fourth time, you ignore the breaking of vows as a sin.
Hope you will pray and study regarding these facts.
Until then you will be teaching ERROR, far and beyond what the Church is teaching.
You "generalize" about divorce and the divorced.
The Church does NOT do so - so why do you do so?Your determination to exclude the opening statement of the Catechism re divorce is awful. You haven’t that right. Until you accept, understand, integrate that line, you have nothing but your own strange insistance. You can’t write Canon Law but you must accept it. Accept the PRIMARY teaching and the rest fall into place.You are cherry picking that one line. That line refers to canon law, so if you are in that position, get thee to a priest. Note the “certain cases” reference. Note the position on abandonment. It is a case by case basis for that one.
What about the other lines in the catechism? They don’t all refer to remarriage.
What about the vows? What about the vows? What about the vows?
Note that I am responding to your comments using your words and references. If you continually refuse to answer my inquiries, you are being dishonest. Your failure to connect the vow breaking to the sinfulness of violating the sanctity of matrimony is your argument’s main flaw.
Would you be willing to go through the section piecemeal, starting with the first line after Divorce and bounce it back and forth? If so, one of us should put the fist item up.Your determination to exclude the opening statement of the Catechism re divorce is awful. You haven’t that right. Until you accept, understand, integrate that line, you have nothing but your own strange insistance. You can’t write Canon Law but you must accept it. Accept the PRIMARY teaching and the rest fall into place.
You are exhausting me - because the topic of divorce acc to Canon Law has beenWould you be willing to go through the section piecemeal, starting with the first line after Divorce and bounce it back and forth? If so, one of us should put the fist item up.
Do your studying HERE:
[marysadvocates.org/syllabus/CCC2383_2386.html](http://www.marysadvocates.org/syllabus/CCC2383_2386.html)
"Article 6 THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT, IV. Offenses Against the Dignity of Marriage
**2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.173 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. 174 Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death." 175
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. 176 If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense." **
THEN, go on to read and absorb the rest, for example
"grave offense"
"immoral"
etc..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot SKIP the introduction and then pretend you're teaching the entire truth.
Get it? Please please please don't bother me with this again.
I haven't the time for it. Go to the SOURCE. Thank you.The law is set and perfectly clear in the Code of Canon Law.Would you be willing to go through the section piecemeal, starting with the first line after Divorce and bounce it back and forth? If so, one of us should put the fist item up.