Pro-Marriage, Pro-Family Voices Lodge Pre-Synod Appeals

[GiveTheTruth]

How is there any guarantee that witnesses that are available have not fabricated testimony? Believe me, it has happened.
You cannot paint everyone with the same brush. Every case should be treated according to its circumstance; otherwise you condemn the guiltless. Matthew 12 :7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”
Jesus said that even a man who looks upon a woman with lust in his heart commits adultery. How are we to discern if a particular man has adulterous thoughts during mass? How are we to discern if any member of the body of Christ is engaged in an extramarital affair unbeknownst to their spouse, but yet receiving the most glorious sacrament?
At the end of the day, God is the ultimate judge and everyone will have to give account to Him, not a man-made doctrine. I think examination of one’s conscious is sufficient. Sacred Scripture warns in 1 Cor. 11:27-30, “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
The Pharisees loved the laws of God and became excellent rule-keepers, but forget about pastoring the sheep in a loving, healing, nurturing way. Hence, Jesus warned his disciples in Luke 12:1, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”
And the same goes for all of us. Jesus continues in verse 2, “For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. Therefore, whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.”
Some are divorced and remarried to their peril, while others are not. The fact that there is an annulment process speaks volumes.

 

[LongingSoul]

Actually, it was LongingSoul that mentioned easyness ( or specifically +Burkes ‘objection’ to annulments being made easier)

Go back and look at the where I quoted LongingSoul

The reason that I highlighted this position of Card. Burke was that those who support that position also always fall back to not having a problem with ‘renovating’ the annulment process. Card. Burkes position is that nothing should be looked at, examined, discussed by the synod at all. He wants all aspects of the Churchs current understanding of sacramentality to remain untouched forever regardless of any factors to impact on peoples understanding and faith. Period. The use of the word ‘easier’ by Card. Burke obviously makes it seem that anyone in the Curia who favours looking further into the annulment process is doing so flippantly. I certainly don’t think that is the case. I think that annulment has become appealing to many as ‘Catholic divorce’ just using all the right wording by law.

 

[LongingSoul]

The Pharisees loved the laws of God and became excellent rule-keepers, but forget about pastoring the sheep in a loving, healing, nurturing way. Hence, Jesus warned his disciples in Luke 12:1, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

And that seems to be something that Pope Francis is determined to prevent when he tellingly warned the members in his closing address to the extraodinary synod against …"a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law"

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Yes. I have been reading some of Pope Francis’ homilies. It seems very clear the direction he’s going in, but who knows? The Orthodox have been attacked by some, because of their annulment process. I actually have did some research on it and found that it’s actually not as “easy” as some make it out to be. Are those that they adjudged qualified to have annulled marriages doomed, because they have a different process?
I sound like a broken record, but the annulment one-size fits all is a problem. Who’s to say that witnesses are being truthful? I’m sure they favor and embellish the side they are representing. God will be the ultimate judge. A true Christian will have conviction, I would hope.

 

[JimG]

Yes. I have been reading some of Pope Francis’ homilies. It seems very clear the direction he’s going in, but who knows? The Orthodox have been attacked by some, because of their annulment process. I actually have did some research on it and found that it’s actually not as “easy” as some make it out to be. Are those that they adjudged qualified to have annulled marriages doomed, because they have a different process?
I sound like a broken record, but the annulment one-size fits all is a problem. Who’s to say that witnesses are being truthful? I’m sure they favor and embellish the side they are representing. God will be the ultimate judge. A true Christian will have conviction, I would hope.

The problem is not with their annulment process, which is a process for determining whether in fact a prior putative marriage was actually valid. The problem is that they seem to consider that a prior valid marriage can actually be dissolved, which is contrary to the words of Jesus.

 

[LongingSoul]

The problem is not with their annulment process, which is a process for determining whether in fact a prior putative marriage was actually valid. The problem is that they seem to consider that a prior valid marriage can actually be dissolved, which is contrary to the words of Jesus.

That comes from the lack of faith of the person. One needs to understand the nature of the sacrament and not just the experience of natural marriage. When the Church determines that the marriage was never sacramental, she is not saying that the marriage never existed in the first place… because it did. It existed in the eyes of the law and in the heart of the people contracting it at the time.

People that married in the Church but without the requisite faith and then come to have their married annulled without the requisite faith are going through motions that are more cultural to them than expressions of faith.

That is why to me it makes more sense that divorce and remarriage are looked at in a different arena altogether to determine the presence of true faith and understanding and that is often within the parish faith and sacramental life of the people involved. Faith is most profoundly expressed by the love of the sacraments and the desire for our children to grow in faith and that is best witnessed locally rather than in the remote offices of distant canon lawyers.

 

[JimG]

That comes from the lack of faith of the person. One needs to understand the nature of the sacrament and not just the experience of natural marriage. When the Church determines that the marriage was never sacramental, she is not saying that the marriage never existed in the first place… because it did. It existed in the eyes of the law and in the heart of the people contracting it at the time.

People that married in the Church but without the requisite faith and then come to have their married annulled without the requisite faith are going through motions that are more cultural to them than expressions of faith.

That is why to me it makes more sense that divorce and remarriage are looked at in a different arena altogether to determine the presence of true faith and understanding and that is often within the parish faith and sacramental life of the people involved. Faith is most profoundly expressed by the love of the sacraments and the desire for our children to grow in faith and that is best witnessed locally rather than in the remote offices of distant canon lawyers.

Of course. A marriage can be either sacramental or a natural marriage. A marriage is not made invalid by the fact of not being sacramental. Marriage tribunals determine validity, not sacramentality.

But either a sacramental or a natural marriage, if validly conracted, can be dissolved only by death. That teaching comes from Jesus; the Church didn’t make it up.

 

[Ender]

Jesus clearly gave Peter the keys to the kingdom…

Yes he did. That act, however, does not mean what you seem to think it does. It does not bestow on the pope the authority to set doctrine as he chooses.“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (1st Vatican Council)

If anyone can provide me with the actual scripture verse where Jesus said that the divorced and remarried are forbidden to do that which He said to do in remembrance of Him or what the early church taught regarding this most important matter, please send it to me.

Those who remarry after divorce commit adultery.He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12)
Adultery is a grave sin.CCC 1447* Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly** grave sins** after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery)*
One cannot receive communion without receiving absolution from grave sins.CCC 1415* Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally** must not receive communion without having received absolution** in the sacrament of penance.*
One cannot receive forgiveness for a sin without contrition.Without a true conversion, which implies inner contrition, and without a sincere and firm purpose of amendment, sins remain “unforgiven,” in the words of Jesus, and with him in the Tradition of the Old and New Covenants. (JPII Dominum et vivificantem)
Contrition includes the intent not to repeat the sin.CCC 1451 Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with* the resolution not to sin again.**"*
So, anyone having sexual relations outside of a regular marriage commits a grave sin which cannot be absolved so long as the sinful relations continue, and since the sin cannot be absolved the person is barred from receiving communion.

Ender

 

[KSU]

Oh, no, no, no, KSU. I will leave my post #39 that you have quoted as is. It speaks for itself with no misinterpretation. Jesus clearly gave Peter the keys to the kingdom; and the Jewish rabbinical interpretation of such an act is what it is and is the bedrock of our belief as the Catholic Church being the Church that Christ gave us. From what I understand the Pope is not alone in what he has proposed.

Now, if I am to take your interpretation of Sacred Scripture, then we are all in grave error of receiving communion, because it is also written and never abrogated by God, “Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.” Yet, we convene on the Lord’s Day, Sunday. It is also written “You shall not make for yourself any graven image … you shall not bow down to them or serve them.” Yet, our Church is adorned with them and some believers bow down to them and offer prayers to them. I would also note that these are mentioned before the prohibition of adultery. You need not get into the Church’s explanation of these changes. I am fully aware of them.

James 2:8-13 “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy TRIUMPHS over judgment.”

I’m not supporting Bob and Jane who have decided that they will leave their spouses at a whim, seek a civil divorce, and demand to be remarried and demand the Eucharist, and I don’t think that’s what the Pope is implying; but not every situation is the same. A woman who is abandoned by a spouse who did not want children and maybe does not have enough witnesses or witnesses have died needs a pathway to reconciliation with the Church. Some people who went through a painful situation hold things in and don’t share or are embarrassed to share or are emotionally and mentally damaged and are in need of a more pastoral (not easier) annulment process.

If anyone can provide me with the actual scripture verse where Jesus said that the divorced and remarried are forbidden to do that which He said to do in remembrance of Him or what the early church taught regarding this most important matter, please send it to me.

That’s a lot of words to say you will stick with your interpretation of Jewish rabbinical interpretation of a pope’s authority, rather than Catholic doctrine as outlined in my post #45 and the link therein.

It seems to me that many people are hurting because of this issue and are willing to grasp at straws. That’s understandable, and they have our prayers.

Cardinal Kasper’s straw is mighty thin gruel, and I hope no one bets their salvation on it. That is all Cardinal Burke et al. are worried about.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Cardinal Pell on marriage, divorce, and Henry VIII

Cardinal George Pell makes a short, powerful argument against changing the Church’s discipline regarding the divorce and remarriage, in a commentary posted on The Catholic Thing.

After mentioning the clear Scriptural warrant, the “almost complete unanimity of two thousand years of Catholic history,” and the success that the Church enjoyed during periods of strict discipline, the prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy ends with a rhetorical question:

Were the decisions that followed Henry VIII’s divorce totally unnecessary?

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=24164

Iterestingly, Jesus’ hard teaching that “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt 19:6) follows not long after his insistence to Peter on the necessity of forgiveness (see Mt 18:21–35).

It is true that Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman who was threatened with death by stoning, but he did not tell her to keep up her good work, to continue unchanged in her ways. He told her to sin no more (see Jn 8:1–11).

One insurmountable barrier for those advocating a new doctrinal and pastoral discipline for the reception of Holy Communion is the almost complete unanimity of two thousand years of Catholic history on this point. It is true that the Orthodox have a long-standing but different tradition, forced on them originally by their Byzantine emperors, but this has never been the Catholic practice.

One might claim that the penitential disciplines in the early centuries before the Council of Nicaea were too fierce as they argued whether those guilty of murder, adultery, or apostasy could be reconciled by the Church to their local communities only once—or not at all. They always acknowledged that God could forgive, even when the Church’s ability to readmit sinners to the community was limited.

Such severity was the norm at a time when the Church was expanding in numbers, despite persecution. It can no more be ignored than the teachings of the Council of Trent or those of Saint John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI on marriage can be ignored. Were the decisions that followed Henry VIII’s divorce totally unnecessary?

thecatholicthing.org/2015/02/26/henry-viii/

 

[Brendan]

The reason that I highlighted this position of Card. Burke was that those who support that position also always fall back to not having a problem with ‘renovating’ the annulment process.

Correct, the process CAN be changed, but ‘ease’ should NEVER be the goal. Delving as deeply as humanly possible into the Truth should be.

Card. Burkes position is that nothing should be looked at, examined, discussed by the synod at all. .

That is not true. Supporting the family, increasing the strength of families, improving marriage prep so that couples go into marriage with the best possible insights as to what God is calling them for in that particular vocation are all topics that +Burke has been advocating for.

Also a wider availability of marriage tribunals (many diocese do not have them) is also something that he has advocated for.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Correct, the process CAN be changed, but ‘ease’ should NEVER be the goal. Delving as deeply as humanly possible into the Truth should be.

That is not true. Supporting the family, increasing the strength of families, improving marriage prep so that couples go into marriage with the best possible insights as to what God is calling them for in that particular vocation are all topics that +Burke has been advocating for.

Also a wider availability of marriage tribunals (many diocese do not have them) is also something that he has advocated for.

Well said. Burke seems to be fine with a Synod about what the Church can do toward strengthening families and marriage as the basis of a healthy society. This one topic has completely sidelined the discussion and not in a good way (IMHO).

 

[Brendan]

People that married in the Church but without the requisite faith and then come to have their married annulled without the requisite faith are going through motions that are more cultural to them than expressions of faith.

And part of the task of the Church is to convey the permanence and indissovibility of marriage to these people, and in fact, the whole world.

That is one of the biggest taskes before the Synod, how best to make known these universal truths about marriage.

That is why to me it makes more sense that divorce and remarriage are looked at in a different arena altogether to determine the presence of true faith and understanding and that is often within the parish faith and sacramental life of the people involved

.

No, the local parish very rarely has on staff those who have been trained to handle investigations into the requirements of the Sacrament. And very few have the time to do the full investigation that a valid search for Truth requires. Or do you just not expect the Church to care to the discovery of Truth.

The parish priests certainly do not have the time to spare, and how much staff do you expect the pastor to hire.

Faith is most profoundly expressed by the love of the sacraments and the desire for our children to grow in faith and that is best witnessed locally rather than in the remote offices of distant canon lawyers.

Hence why +Burke is advocating for greater access to these tribunals, so that great distances do not need to be crossed to have access to those who have been trained by the Church to handle these matters.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Can anyone answer a question? I know I may have ruffled some feathers on this post with my support for the ones that are having annulment issues. I heard that the Pope is also considering allowing homosexuals to communion which I am totally against. If this is true can someone let me know, please.

 

[Suudy]

Can anyone answer a question? I know I may have ruffled some feathers on this post with my support for the ones that are having annulment issues. I heard that the Pope is also considering allowing homosexuals to communion which I am totally against. If this is true can someone let me know, please.

Why shouldn’t those with same-sex attraction be permitted to communion?

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Because the Word of God says homosexuality is an abomination.

 

[JimG]

Because the Word of God says homosexuality is an abomination.

Sexual feelings of any sort are just feelings; there is nothing sinful about feelings. Sexual actions, however, can be sinful. The scriptures talk about sexual actions.

 

[GiveTheTruth]

Take the example of two gay gentlemen attending Mass in Michigan, I believe. They entered in a civil union and began showing up to church as a blatant gay couple. The priest had to remove them from the choir and refused to administer the Eucharist to them.
What are we to do if this happens? By the way, what are the Church’s rules regarding gays receiving communion and who do they view it?

 

[JimG]

Take the example of two gay gentlemen attending Mass in Michigan, I believe. They entered in a civil union and began showing up to church as a blatant gay couple. The priest had to remove them from the choir and refused to administer the Eucharist to them.
What are we to do if this happens? By the way, what are the Church’s rules regarding gays receiving communion and who do they view it?

They are in the same position as a man and woman shacking up. Because of their actions (not their feelings) they should not be receiving communion. The Church has condemned the idea of same sex unions as being the equivalent of marriage.

 

[Phil502]

Yes he did. That act, however, does not mean what you seem to think it does. It does not bestow on the pope the authority to set doctrine as he chooses.“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard* the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (1st Vatican Council)
Those who remarry after divorce commit adultery.He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12)
Adultery is a grave sin.CCC 1447 Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly** grave sins*** after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery)
One cannot receive communion without receiving absolution from grave sins.CCC 1415* Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally** must not receive communion without having received absolution*** in the sacrament of penance.
One cannot receive forgiveness for a sin without contrition.Without a true conversion, which implies inner contrition, and without a sincere and firm purpose of amendment, sins remain “unforgiven,” in the words of Jesus, and with him in the Tradition of the Old and New Covenants. (JPII Dominum et vivificantem)
Contrition includes the intent not to repeat the sin.CCC 1451* Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is* “sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with** the resolution not to sin again.**”
So, anyone having sexual relations outside of a regular marriage commits a grave sin which cannot be absolved so long as the sinful relations continue, and since the sin cannot be absolved the person is barred from receiving communion.

Ender

This in reference to a question posed by Give The Truth earlier:
If anyone can provide me with the actual scripture verse where Jesus said that the divorced and remarried are forbidden to do that which He said to do in remembrance of Him or what the early church taught regarding this most important matter, please send it to me.

CCC does not apper to be Gospel exactly, it is merely an interpertation of it, correct? Help me to understand this.