The Church did not “decide” to deny people communion when they are in a state of sin. It’s not a “tradition” when you find it in the Bible.He did not say to deny communion to anyone. The Church has decided that denying communion is appropriate in this kind of case, and the Church can now decide that it is not.
Where in the Bible does it state that the remarried are to be denied communion? (It doesn’t.) For that matter, where in the Bible is annulment addressed? (Again, its not.)The Church did not “decide” to deny people communion when they are in a state of sin. It’s not a “tradition” when you find it in the Bible.
It also really isn’t “denial”. It’s the responsibility of our leaders to not lead people into sin. So, in reality, “denying” somebody communion who’s in a state of mortal sin IS a mercy in and of itself, as you’re keeping somebody from more mortal sin.
It depends on how you interpret St. Paul’s caution against receiving unworthily. How can the Church suddenly change someone living in an adulterous state to now be worthy of receiving? If you are arguing it can, then prepare for some adverse reaction. Not threatening but just sayin…Where in the Bible does it state that the remarried are to be denied communion? (It doesn’t.) For that matter, where in the Bible is annulment addressed? (Again, its not.)
These are practices developed over the centuries by the Church. They should not be lightly changed, but they can be changed. If they could not, why is the Church even discussing it?
Hello,…
It seems clear to me that with respect to divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annulment receiving communion, it is the Sacrament of Marriage that is the issue and not the second marriage. The Church even has provisions where such a Catholic can indeed receive communion. This concerns the Sacrament of Marriage, conjugal relations and adultery. The second marriage itself is not technically relevant.
But since you are a canon lawyer, I have a question. (There is no need to perhaps feel defensive. The question is non-judgmental and there are sincere reasons why I ask.) It might seem at first to stray from the topic, but it surely does not. Only the approved Latin text of the 1983 code of Canon Law has force of law. …
*Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. *For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. (I Cor 11:27-29)Where in the Bible does it state that the remarried are to be denied communion? (It doesn’t.) For that matter, where in the Bible is annulment addressed? (Again, its not.)
This is not a practice. Not eating fish on Friday was a practice instituted by the church and changeable by the church. The prohibition against receiving communion while in a state of grave sin is a doctrine that has been enforced from the very beginning of her existence. Although not declared as infallible it has surely been taught infallibly, and can never be changed.*These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” *(St. John Chrysostom, c 400)These are practices developed over the centuries by the Church. They should not be lightly changed, but they can be changed. If they could not, why is the Church even discussing it?
:clapping:I hate to bring it up, but if you’re using Protestant concordances then you’re dealing with at best a 500 year old interpretation.
Are you really trying to tell me that it took 1500 years for Christians to do a face palm and “of COURSE if your hubby or wife cheated on you, you can divorce and remarry, no worry, Jesus said so”. . .
Then how come in the records we have, whether it was a king, or a nobleman, or Piers Plowman and Wat Tyler, if a wife was unchaste she was either executed (in which case a subsequent marriage was fine because the man was now a widower) or else imprisoned or ‘sent to a convent’ and a decree of nullity was sought (not for the adultery, but rather for things like too near relationship to the husband, or had not fully consented, or had a 'previous relationship BEFORE the marriage and therefore COULD NOT LAWFULLY MARRY, instead of saying, “looky, she cheated, we’re done, I’m outta here with wife #2?”)
If ‘fornication’ or ‘adultery’ by one of the spouses were grounds for divorce and subsequent remarriage by the injured party, why don’t we find consistent records of this being engaged in by Christians? Instead, we see that the ‘injured party’ could NOT simply ‘divorce’ and remarry due to the ‘unchastity’ of the other spouse.
I also use Protestant news sources, dictionaries, gardening tips, hammers and saws. Lexicons are not about interpretation, and all disagreement at that level is scholarly, not theological. So, if this is not an accurate representation of the possible* literal* meaning of this Greek word, then it should be no effort at all for you or Phil to show where this word has another literal meaning from a Catholic scholar. This may seem like a minor distinction, whether we look at this word literally or dynamically, but on such distinctions theology is built.I hate to bring it up, but if you’re using Protestant concordances then you’re dealing with at best a 500 year old interpretation.
Thanks again for the reply. I was curious about use of the Latin text as the result of an actual case. A close friend of mind was married in the Church. Both he and his wife were Catholic. After seven years of marriage, his wife left him and obtained a civil divorce. Neither party remarried–or not yet. She then petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage.Hello,
Understanding of Latin: well, of course there are few people who obtain a degree in canon law who are also true scholars of Latin. Nevertheless, part of the canon law curriculum includes at least 2 years of Latin so that the students are able to make basic sense out of the canons in the Code. The Latin used therein is not that complicated and as long as the students are also made aware of the meaning of any technical terminology, they should be ok… Tribunal personnel who have an essential role in the outcome of a case (i.e., Judges, Defenders) are to be degreed in canon law. Secretaries and so on…they usually don’t know Latin, have no degree in canon law and don’t deal with the merits of the case.
Dan
Not sure how he came to that conclusion. One can petition for a decree of nullity in the diocese where one is living or in the diocese where one was married. If the two spouses live in separate diocese and not in the dioceses where they were married there are 3 possible dioceses where they could petition for a decree of nullity.My friend told me it was his firm belief his first marriage was valid, and he did not care what total strangers, at that time hundreds of miles distant in his former wife’s then diocese, had judged about his marriage, not when he hadn’t even participated in its hearing. But he began looking at canon law and realized his wife’s diocese did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. He eventually appealed to the Roma Rota but never received a response.
It was my friend’s former wife that petitioned for an annulment while living in a diocese that was 2,000 miles distant from where my friend lived. He had no control over this. He came to the conclusion he did about the annulment because the diocese that heard the marriage case did not have jurisdiction under canon law to hear it. The court of second instance issued the Decree of Nullity. That it did not have jurisdiction was very simple and straightforward, but my friend did not become aware of this fact until several years later, well beyond the short time period in which it could have been appealed to the second instance court.Not sure how he came to that conclusion. One can petition for a decree of nullity in the diocese where one is living or in the diocese where one was married. If the two spouses live in separate diocese and not in the dioceses where they were married there are 3 possible dioceses where they could petition for a decree of nullity.
I believe in the case where the Tribunal finds that the marriage is indeed invalid, the case is submitted to the Court of Second Instance for review. A second finding of nullity then results in the petitioner receiving a decree of nullity. I know in my friends’ case they were informed of the original finding but warned that it still had to be reviewed. The Court of Second Instance agreed with the original finding.
The phrase “in an unworthy manner” is the question. Can the Church decide what is an “unworthy manner”? For example, is it true that many women are on the birth control pill and yet receive Holy Communion?*Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. *For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. (I Cor 11:27-29)
This is not a practice. Not eating fish on Friday was a practice instituted by the church and changeable by the church. The prohibition against receiving communion while in a state of grave sin is a doctrine that has been enforced from the very beginning of her existence. Although not declared as infallible it has surely been taught infallibly, and can never be changed.*These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” *(St. John Chrysostom, c 400)
Ender
Why did it not have jurisdiction? If she lived in that diocese she had a right to petition for a decree of nullity there.It was my friend’s former wife that petitioned for an annulment while living in a diocese that was 2,000 miles distant from where my friend lived. He had no control over this. He came to the conclusion he did about the annulment because the diocese that heard the marriage case did not have jurisdiction under canon law to hear it. The court of second instance issued the Decree of Nullity. That it did not have jurisdiction was very simple and straightforward, but my friend did not become aware of this fact until several years later, well beyond the short time period in which it could have been appealed to the second instance court.
I also was ‘gung ho’ for the 2011 changes but those were not changes to Scripture or the Church’s interpretation of the Bible.I also use Protestant news sources, dictionaries, gardening tips, hammers and saws. Lexicons are not about interpretation, and all disagreement at that level is scholarly, not theological. So, if this is not an accurate representation of the possible* literal* meaning of this Greek word, then it should be no effort at all for you or Phil to show where this word has another literal meaning from a Catholic scholar. This may seem like a minor distinction, whether we look at this word literally or dynamically, but on such distinctions theology is built.
I really would be interested in seeing such a thing. I tried to find it before I came to the link, which I only used because it is recognized, like Merriam-Webster.
Again, the point is what the literal meaning of the word is, not what Jesus meant by using it (interpretation). Of course I accept the authority of the Church to interpret the Bible. However, I detest hypocrisy in myself and know that I was quite gung ho for the new*, more literal* translation of the Mass.
Cases like this to my mind and sensibilities, seem to typify why the pastoral treatment of divorce/remarriage cases, is critical to the Catholic understanding of the sacrament of marriage in general. Part of this mans difficulty is his overconfidence that no marriage performed as a Catholic ceremony could be invalid or ‘not take’ so to speak. He seems not to be factoring into the equation the nature of Gods grace and the need for mans cooperation in the reception of that grace.Therefore, it should have been the Decree of Nullity that was invalid. Nevertheless, he and his wife did not remarry in the Church. But remarry they did in a civil ceremony. While they both attend Mass, they do not go forth to receive communion. He has been a devout Catholic since childhood and as an adult a traditional Catholic as well. Part of the reason he did not participate in the marriage case was he believes marriage is indissoluble and that marriage annulments are nonsense. He also believed almost any Catholic marriage could be annulled if a person knew what to tell the tribunal. (Lest this upset anyone, it is noted this is of course is only his belief.) But he is reconcilled to it, though convinced it is the Church that has erred.
Not true. In the Eastern Church, which was still Catholic before 1054, there were 14 titles compiled by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople in 883. This collection affirms the indissolubility of marriage while it also provides a list of causes for divorce.As I noted before, for centuries and centuries Catholics of all stripes obviously, according to records we have regarding various people who wanted to ‘dump their spouse’ for adultery never ONCE came before the local priest, or the bishop, or the Pope, and said, "Well, my spouse cheated on me. Therefore according to Scriptural teaching in Matthew, where Jesus said, “any one who puts away his spouse unless it be for fornication or adultery, and marries again, commits adultery’, since MY spouse did cheat on me, the Church says I may put that spouse away and marry again.”.
A declaration of nullity is not a dissolution. A dissolution would be, e.g. the Pauline or Petrine Privilege.She then petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage.
Tom, could you please provided you sources and explain how those collections are not really reasons for what we call annulment?Not true. In the Eastern Church, which was still Catholic before 1054, there were 14 titles compiled by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople in 883. This collection affirms the indissolubility of marriage while it also provides a list of causes for divorce.
Yes, she had that right. This really isn’t off-topic and hopefully won’t be viewed that way. It is a bit technical. There were two reasons. They concern Can. 1673 of the 1983 code of Canon Law. To petition for an annulment, the petition must be filed in one of three dioceses. The former spouse petitioned in her diocese, 2,000 miles away. To have the marriage case heard in the petitioner’s diocese required the consent of the judicial vicar of the resondent’s (husband’s) diocese, in accordance with Can. 1673.4 of the 1983 code of Canon Law. Maybe. The Latin text provides that the Vicar General’s consent is actually the respondent’s consent as provided through his Vicar General. The English text does not read this way and provides only that the Vicar General’s consent is required, but only after he has heard from the respondent. This never happened. Canon law experts are not in agreement about who must provide this consent, but it seemed sufficient for an appeal. There are additional reasons, but it becomes too lengthy for a forum comment. Even the English translation could provide that it is the respondent’s consent that is required. To see this, knowledge of Latin is very helpful. But the husband decided not to use this as grounds for appeal. The husband did later receive correspondence from the petitioner’s diocese asking if he wished to participate in the marriage case, but he was not yet aware that he should have been notified earlier, which would have provided him the option of objecting to the case being heard 2,000 miles from his own diocese. In any event, by the time he received this correspondence, the short time period for doing so had long since expired.Why did it not have jurisdiction? If she lived in that diocese she had a right to petition for a decree of nullity there.
I think the Catholic Church can and does teach some ways in which one can receive in an unworthy manner, but I not in the Scripture, it is the manner that is unworthy, not the person. The actual passage is definitely dealing only with the manner of reception, namely, it was done flippantly, with lots of eating and drinking. Paul even clarifies this by adding, “not discerning the Lord’s body.”The phrase “in an unworthy manner” is the question. Can the Church decide what is an “unworthy manner”? For example, is it true that many women are on the birth control pill and yet receive Holy Communion?
The book has already been mentioned on this thread. Remaining in the truth of Christ, chapters 3 and 4.Tom, could you please provided you sources and explain how those collections are not really reasons for what we call annulment?