On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Corki said:
Please point me to that reference in Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives - such as, for example, the upbringing of the children - “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. (Declaration, Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)
The church does permit the divorced and remarried to receive communion if they have expressed their intention not to have sexual relations - which permits their sins to be forgiven - provided they receive privately so as not to give scandal to the community.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives - such as, for example, the upbringing of the children - “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. (Declaration, Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)
The church does permit the divorced and remarried to receive communion if they have expressed their intention not to have sexual relations - which permits their sins to be forgiven - provided they receive privately so as not to give scandal to the community.

Ender
Click to expand...
Yes. But that is not what Thomas stated. He said that there was teaching that Catholics married outside of the Church could receive Communion as long as they were “not committing the sin of adultery”. What you have quoted is a particular concession, granted by the Confessor, when separation is not possible.
 
I found this on EWTN:

One final situation is that of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children. Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as “brother and sister” (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.htm

Where does this requirement that they receive privately come from. I have never heard that one before.

This diocese does not require this.

Can a divorced Catholic receive the sacraments?
Yes, as long as there is no attempt at a sexual relationship with another party and as long as one is living in the state of grace, and their conscience unaware of serious mortal sin, then he or she may fully participate in the sacraments of the Church.

diocese-tribunal.org/faq.php

If there is any truth to this at all, this would be one easy area to change.
 
Corki said:
Yes. But that is not what Thomas stated. He said that there was teaching that Catholics married outside of the Church could receive Communion as long as they were “not committing the sin of adultery”. What you have quoted is a particular concession, granted by the Confessor, when separation is not possible.
Click to expand...
What is quoted says the very same thing. Whether or not the couple is separated is not the question. Here is another source:

Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives - such as, for example, the upbringing of the children - "to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo. (Declaration, Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
 
pnewton said:
I found this on EWTN:
  • *One final situation is that of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children. Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as “brother and sister” (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments.
Where does this requirement that they receive privately come from. I have never heard that one before.
Click to expand...
One source is the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. The requirement comes from the necessity of avoiding scandal.
This diocese does not require this.
Click to expand...
Regrettably, these days this doesn’t necessarily mean what it should.
If there is any truth to this at all, this would be one easy area to change.
Click to expand...
What would you change? The church’s understanding of what scandal is, or her perception that it is serious?

Ender
 
MODERATOR NOTE

This thread is wandering, please return to the topic of the original post
 
Ender said:
One source is the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. The requirement comes from the necessity of avoiding scandal.
Click to expand...
I have been searching and came up empty. In light of what I have heard repeatedly on Catholic Answers, different bishops, and the lack of anything during a search, I am inclined to disbelieve.
 
pnewton said:
I used these words in this “attack”:
I have found
particularly unreliable
blog

You used:
*Leftists
attack
abusive
intolerant
uncharitable

*Really?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Did you see your name or words in my post? As you know, if I had been referring to you, you would know it. So please knock off the victim charade.
 
KSU said:
Did you see your name or words in my post? As you know, if I had been referring to you, you would know it. So please knock off the victim charade.
Click to expand...
Your post was a bit technically corrupted and therefore obscure in quoting *my *post… which could be a major source of confusion. It was in fact myself that referenced the ultra extremest right wing blogosphere of Church Militant. It was zapped by CAF so there’s something unacceptable about it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it isn’t an acceptable news source.
 
Ender said:
Since both Thomas White and I posted the same citation perhaps you should have just asked for the link.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

See section 6.

Ender
Click to expand...
Good. Now that the link is posted anyone can search it on how it addresses receiving privately. Just search the key word in the document. I would post the section here, but I came up with no matches.

I think one reason why most (all?) bishops do not worry about some sort of private communion is simply that the concept of reception causing scandal is not an issue in their eyes. I believe the whole idea is ridiculously overblown in this case. Perhaps the bishops can address that in society today there is simply no scandal issue, or usually none as to who does and does not receive communion. Since we are dealing with faithful Catholics making heroic effort, there surely they of all people should not be treated as some pariah that has to sneak in the back door to partake in the Holy Eucharist, not that these people would mind. Like I said, they are by their nature heroic Catholics.
 
I trust the bishops at this synod to at least have the best interest of all foremost. I do think the laity are too often ready to pick up the stone and stand in line, either because the personally have never faced these issues, or because they have faced it and were victimized by another. If one has never face homosexual temptation, it is easier to disregard the difficulties involved. If one has been abandoned by a spouse, it is easier to think no one remarried should ever be given any mercy.

Yes, there are serious theological issues that are being discussed, but when it comes to affairs of the heart, we cannot dismiss the emotional context that people live in when they discuss these issues.
 
Ender said:
Since both Thomas White and I posted the same citation perhaps you should have just asked for the link.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

See section 6.

Ender
Click to expand...
Can. 1650 of the 1983 code of Canon Law also provides this teaching, and therein in this plain and clear sentence:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

With respect to the OP, which concerns the questions before the synod, what is it that is not said in the above quotation from the code of Canon Law?
 
EDIT: The above reference (#401) should have been to #1650 of the CCC and not a reference to the code of Canon Law. My apologies.
 
pnewton said:
I trust the bishops at this synod to at least have the best interest of all foremost. I do think the laity are too often ready to pick up the stone and stand in line, either because the personally have never faced these issues, or because they have faced it and were victimized by another. If one has never face homosexual temptation, it is easier to disregard the difficulties involved. If one has been abandoned by a spouse, it is easier to think no one remarried should ever be given any mercy.

Yes, there are serious theological issues that are being discussed, but when it comes to affairs of the heart, we cannot dismiss the emotional context that people live in when they discuss these issues.
Click to expand...
And if one has never been truly in love to their core with all the precepts and teaching of the Church and done everything in their power to live them from the day of their birth including being willing to die to teachings of the faith, it is easy to disregard their opinions too, right? I just want to be clear, so this isn’t a one-sided account of “only one side gets ignored.”

Frankly, the majority of these discussions involve one-side telling the other “you can’t imagine what it must be like to be homosexual/divorced/remarried etc.” Rarely hear it the other way around.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
And if one has never been truly in love to their core with all the precepts and teaching of the Church and done everything in their power to live them from the day of their birth including being willing to die to teachings of the faith, it is easy to disregard their opinions too, right?
Click to expand...
Those aren’t mutually exclusive things. Very good and holy people struggle with afflictions not of their own making. The issues being raised are not because people themselves are demanding the Church ‘change the rules’. These issues are being raised within the working clergy who tend to these people in their congregations. Why would you be so annoyed at what is a normal process of the Church in ministering to its people? Especially since the Church always gets it right. That’s the promise.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
And if one has never been truly in love to their core with all the precepts and teaching of the Church and done everything in their power to live them from the day of their birth including being willing to die to teachings of the faith, it is easy to disregard their opinions too, right?
Click to expand...
No. I did not say that. I have not seen what you claim.
 
LongingSoul said:
Why would you be so annoyed at what is a normal process of the Church in ministering to its people?
Click to expand...
It is human nature. From Luke 15:

“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top