Remarried to receive Eucharist?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Civilization has been confused ever since secular government asserted authority over a Sacrament of God (marriage).

The grace of matrimony flows from God, not government. God joins and divides only by death. Government does not join, and divides only by dollar.

The Church determines if a marriage exists, or if it does not. Period. Two people can obtain a legal status from government, live together, bear children and raise them unto the fourth generation. That does not mean that they were married in God’s eyes.

This is absolutely true. When the church surrendered power over one of its sacraments to the state she lost control.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I imagine that such cases could for example include a woman in a poor country somewhere in Africa, whose first husband abandoned her without annulment, and whose second husband will only support her children if there are marital relations, and without his support the children would die of hunger. The woman is lacking the sufficient freedom of the will if she wants to keep her children alive. I also assume that such cases would include second or subsequent unions in many parts of the world where the husband simply does not ask for consent, and living as “brother and sister” is not an option for the wife and neither is leaving the man, if she could not survive (and her children) alone in the country where she lives. This is just my opinion, but those are the cases that I have in mind. These cases would be extremely rare in western democracies, but not so rare in the developing world.

You can “imagine” anything. You still have to have a person who knows they cannot be in a marriage, refuses to stop having sex.

Look, most sexual sin and the Eucharist boils down to a state of grace or the stimulation of ones genitals.

Crass? Maybe. But kasper is clear. The letter to Argentina was clear. And now we have confusion.

All people can offer is what they think it means. That is why we have a need for clarification.

To all those who think it is solved, do you think the four cardinals who have asked for clarification know less than we do?

 

[josh987654321]

I have an important question concerning the Catholic faith. Why do we Catholics allow remarried to now receive the Eucharist when they never could before? And I thought the Catholic Church has never changed it’s teachings on morale issues. I love the Catholic faith, and am asking to understand the church’s position.

I too am deeply concerned. I’ll pray for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, she has been through difficult times before.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

The premise is simply incorrect.

Any potential particular case (one could argue rare case) where a persons culpability etc is not present for mortal sin etc etc (much would need to be discerned) - does not mean that one can say “we allow the remarried (invalidly) to receive the Eucharist.”. The discipline of the Church remains rather what it was - even if there could possibly be some exceptions in some very particular cases.

When we start talking ‘particular rare cases’ all I see is the slippery slope. It will not last long. I believe if this is the case, it would be up to the prudential judgment of the priests and bishops themselves, which means some people would just go priest or bishop shopping until they receive the answer they want.

Anyway, I don’t know a great deal about it, what I am hearing has me troubled though.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[po18guy]

The pressure is on the Church to “loose” marriage.

Which worldly spirit not only incited this, but would delight in it?

 

[josh987654321]

Remarried people have been allowed to receive communion for quite a while. The process involved a recognition of nullity of the earlier marriage and a validation of the subsequent marriage.

If they have been annulled, then there was no marriage in the first place, so I believe it would be incorrect to refer to them as ‘remarried’ if they had received an annulment from said previous relationship. And thus for starters, it should not be referred to as communion for the divorced and remarried. As there can be no divorce, and there can be no remarriage.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I’ll just pose a hypothetical.

Say if I were to get married in the future, and my wife were then to ‘get sick of me for whatever reason’ divorce me and then marry someone else, could I then some day possibly be at Mass and find my wife with another man in the pew in front of me and receiving communion with their family?

I know that when/if I marry in the future, it will be for life, in sickness and in health, till death do us part, this is what makes marriage the sacrament it is. If one tries to find some kind of ‘loophole’ for divorcing and remarrying, then one is also attacking the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[pianistclare]

What people fail to understand, is that priests have always had these “issues” come up and they deal with it.
The fact that many Catholics have a "collect $200 and go straight to hell " attitude, will of course is going to cause said “confusion”.

All of this worry about the Pope, for heaven’s sake.
Nuts.
Pastors everywhere are still counseling people well, and the Pope has not changed anything.
At all.

 

[josh987654321]

What people fail to understand, is that priests have always had these “issues” come up and they deal with it.
The fact that many Catholics have a "collect $200 and go straight to hell " attitude, will of course is going to cause said “confusion”.

All of this worry about the Pope, for heaven’s sake.
Nuts.
Pastors everywhere are still counseling people well, and the Pope has not changed anything.
At all.

It’s not that, I am concerned because of contradiction. There is nothing personal about contradiction, a contradiction is a contradiction.

I would like to see people reach out to the divorced and remarried, but one cannot contradict the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

‘Communion for the divorced and remarried’ is a contradiction, there is no divorce and there is no remarriage. There is only Annulment, (Or death do they part, but if there are any King Henry’s, remember Thou Shalt not Kill).

Divorce and remarriage has become an epidemic of mass proportions, this teaching is hard, I don’t know how one proceeds, but I know that one cannot contradict the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You can “imagine” anything. You still have to have a person who knows they cannot be in a marriage, refuses to stop having sex.

Look, most sexual sin and the Eucharist boils down to a state of grace or the stimulation of ones genitals.

Crass? Maybe. But kasper is clear. The letter to Argentina was clear. And now we have confusion.

All people can offer is what they think it means. That is why we have a need for clarification.

To all those who think it is solved, do you think the four cardinals who have asked for clarification know less than we do?

“We” do not have confusion.

“We” do not have need for clarification.

Four Cardinals, who are emeriti I might add, have made a petition to the Pope because, in conscience, they have concerns which prompted the submission of dubia.

It is up to the Pope whether or not to choose to respond to their petition.

But that has no effect on those who, not being emeriti, have the cura animarum presently and who, quite capably, are implementing the post synodal apostolic exhortation without confusion and without any sense of a lack of clarity.

 

[pianistclare]

It’s not that, I am concerned because of contradiction. There is nothing personal about contradiction, a contradiction is a contradiction.

I would like to see people reach out to the divorced and remarried, but one cannot contradict the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

‘Communion for the divorced and remarried’ is a contradiction, there is no divorce and there is no remarriage. There is only Annulment, (Or death do they part, but if there are any King Henry’s, remember Thou Shalt not Kill).

Divorce and remarriage has become an epidemic of mass proportions, this teaching is hard, I don’t know how one proceeds, but I know that one cannot contradict the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

It has not helped, frankly. It calls into suspicion the Pontiff.
As Father R rightly says, there is no confusion, no contradiction.
Praying for the people of the Church to have faith and trust. The Church would not have survived the 2000 years of personal opinions if Christ had abandoned her, (He said He never would) or if the laity did not possess faith.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Here is an interview with Burke about the confusion. There are some good points here.

m.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-on-amoris-laetitia-dubia-tremendous-division-warrants-action#.WCxvxDRHbCS

He basically points out that there is apparent contradiction between the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of the Eucharist if adulterers are allowed one but not the other.

 

[Bookcat]

When we start talking ‘particular rare cases’ all I see is the slippery slope.

The question was asked so it had to be answered.

We though are *not privy *to such very complex cases (and perhaps rather rare cases)…that is a strong point. And thankfully they do not fall to us to discern!

Anyway, I don’t know a great deal about it, what I am hearing has me troubled though.

Thankfully again it does not fall to you or me…so let it not trouble you…

Keep your eyes fixed on Christ and follow him with joy in his Church and leave that which is not part of your vocation to those who bear that burden and of course pray for all who need your prayers.

 

[Sirach2]

Any reasonable person can quickly see that there is no further requirement of Pope Francis to address these four clergy with regard to ambiguity of A/L.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, who was tasked by the pope with presenting *Amoris Laetitia, *said it does not change the Church’s teaching but represents a development of doctrine, in continuity with previous popes and the Church’s Magisterium. [See V-II’s *Dei Verbum on development of doctrine

]

Expressing his appreciation for the text drafted by the bishops, the Pope highlighted how it manifests in its fullness the sense of Chapter 8 of the Apostolic Exhortation — which deals with “accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness” — clarifying that “there are no other interpretations.” The bishops’ document, the Pope said, “will do much good,” especially for that “pastoral charity” which runs through the whole of it.

Focusing precisely on Chapter 8 of the Apostolic Exhortation, the document of the Argentine bishops state that “we should not speak of ‘permission’ to have access to the Sacraments, but a **process of discernment accompanied by a pastor.” This process must be “personal and pastoral.” **

This path, they warn, does not necessarily end in [reception of] the Sacrament, but may lead to other forms of greater integration into the life of the Church: a greater presence in the community, participation in prayer or reflection groups, and a commitment to various forms of ecclesial service.
See more.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Any reasonable person can quickly see that there is no further requirement of Pope Francis to address these four clergy with regard to ambiguity of A/L.

So you think the four cardinals are unreasonable?