Synod fathers discuss Holy Communion for the remarried [CC]

[_Abyssinia]

Cardinal Pell says that the Synod will vote on final report paragraph by paragraph

But will each paragraph need a two thirds majority to ‘amend it’ in the words of Edward Pentin?

ncregister.com/daily-news/married-couples-have-their-say-at-the-synod

 

[TMC]

If the father in the story had not previously come forward for communion, he must have known that he was not properly disposed to receive it because of his divorce and remarriage. If he knew this, he should not have accepted communion from the boy, nor should anyone have prompted the boy to become an impromptu EMHC.

The story does not say that he consumed the host. He may have handed it back to the priest. A lot of assumptions are being made here based on one sentence in a very short article. I suggest we give the unnamed Synod Father (likely a bishop, after all) the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ARSpade]

What about communion for divorced and remarried gay couples?

Sadly, good ol Blase ruined your sarcasm.

 

[JimG]

The story does not say that he consumed the host. He may have handed it back to the priest. A lot of assumptions are being made here based on one sentence in a very short article. I suggest we give the unnamed Synod Father (likely a bishop, after all) the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, but when an ambiguous story like this is passed on, it cries out for greater detail; otherwise, no conclusion can be drawn, and then what is the point of the story?

 

[adrift]

There is no such thing as divorce in the Catholic Church.

 

[_Abyssinia]

!!! That sweet kid! Wanting to share it --and all that it means–with his father! If the priest wasn’t going to give it to him, the kid would!

Now that’s heart.

Yes, it’s against the rules–but the kid didn’t know that.
And the point of the story is…the desire for families to all partake together, and that they are in pain because they cannot. The kid must have known that the father wanted to receive it and how important it was to him.

.

I hope neither of the parents consumed the Eucharist if they were not in a state of grace.

 

[Corki]

Yes, I know.

That issue aside, the question was how would another person know the disposition of the Communicant and thus conclude the person was not disposed to receive communion, i.e., directly.

You would have to ask the Synod Father who said so how he knew. But pastors are often very aware of the irregular situations of their parishioners. Given the topic of the thread, I think it’s safe to assume this was a man who was divorced and re"married".

 

[Thomas_White]

You would have to ask the Synod Father who said so how he knew. But pastors are often very aware of the irregular situations of their parishioners. Given the topic of the thread, I think it’s safe to assume this was a man who was divorced and re"married".

I understand. We just don’t know the whole story, I guess.

 

[pnewton]

There is no such thing as divorce in the Catholic Church.

Divorce is a civil action. So while it is true to say that it is not “in” the Catholic Church, the Church is aware of its existence.

 

[adrift]

Divorce is a civil action. So while it is true to say that it is not “in” the Catholic Church, the Church is aware of its existence.

Jesus was aware of it so how could the Church not be aware of it? There are all sorts of things that are civil actions not recognized by the Church.

 

[Paganus]

!!! That sweet kid! Wanting to share it --and all that it means–with his father! If the priest wasn’t going to give it to him, the kid would!

Now that’s heart.

Yes, it’s against the rules–but the kid didn’t know that.
And the point of the story is…the desire for families to all partake together, and that they are in pain because they cannot. The kid must have known that the father wanted to receive it and how important it was to him.

.

Anyone who has received communion knows 1 Corinthians 11:27.

 

[LongingSoul]

Jesus was aware of it so how could the Church not be aware of it? There are all sorts of things that are civil actions not recognized by the Church.

They are not recognised as ‘sacramental’ but they are recognised as natural. Over time the Church has withdrawn from condemning people as being separate from us in ungodliness such as it’s treatment of Jews, pagans, heretics, schismatics etc. She has increasingly honoured what is good in the natural and sees in it the seeds of holiness needing direction.

 

[adrift]

They are not recognised as ‘sacramental’ but they are recognised as natural. Over time the Church has withdrawn from condemning people as being separate from us in ungodliness such as it’s treatment of Jews, pagans, heretics, schismatics etc. She has increasingly honoured what is good in the natural and sees in it the seeds of holiness needing direction.

I am very confused by your statement. My comment was that the Church does not recognize divorce. Marriage between two baptized people is sacramental. What you mean by natural I have no idea.

 

[adrift]

I am very confused by your statement. My comment was that the Church does not recognize divorce. Marriage between two baptized people is sacramental. What you mean by natural I have no idea.

When the Church refers to a marriage being natural, it refers to a non-sacramental marriage that is between a man and a woman one of which or both not baptized.

 

[pnewton]

Jesus was aware of it so how could the Church not be aware of it? There are all sorts of things that are civil actions not recognized by the Church.

Yes, and lest we forget, also at one time He allowed a certificate of divorce as an accommodation to the hardness of Man’s heart. The was allowed, yet the insolubility of marriage was just as true then. It is a complex issue, once we stop trying to disassociate God in the Old Testament, form Jesus, and from the Holy Spirit.

Then we have the rather interesting case of David and Bathsheba, and the resulting heir of the Davidic Kingdom.

 

[adrift]

Yes, and lest we forget, also at one time He allowed a certificate of divorce as an accommodation to the hardness of Man’s heart. The was allowed, yet the insolubility of marriage was just as true then. It is a complex issue, once we stop trying to disassociate God in the Old Testament, form Jesus, and from the Holy Spirit.

Then we have the rather interesting case of David and Bathsheba, and the resulting heir of the Davidic Kingdom.

When you say He you mean God? I thought Jesus said that Moses was the one who allowed it.
Yes indeed David with Bathsheba is an interesting case.

 

[pnewton]

When you say He you mean God? I thought Jesus said that Moses was the one who allowed it.

Yes, He is God who is Jesus. God said both that Moses permitted it, and God told Moses what to do. According to Scripture, the law was delivered to Moses by God, who is Jesus.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, He is God who is Jesus. God said both that Moses permitted it, and God told Moses what to do. According to Scripture, the law was delivered to Moses by God, who is Jesus.

I don’t THINK that Scripture tells us that God told Moses what to do. Could it not be that Moses, a fallible man, permitted something in the law that was wrong, and which Jesus was now correcting? There is precedent for that, in that Jesus spoke earlier saying, “you have heard that the law says X, BUT I TELL YOU Y”. . .usually making matters ‘harder’ if you will. So if the law had kowtowed and fallen off, it was quite logical that Jesus would have (rightly) pointed out that the law had ‘gone off the rails’ when lawgivers ‘gave in’ to societal demands, but that GOD decreed something different.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t THINK that Scripture tells us that God told Moses what to do. Could it not be that Moses, a fallible man, permitted something in the law that was wrong, and which Jesus was now correcting? There is precedent for that, in that Jesus spoke earlier saying, “you have heard that the law says X, BUT I TELL YOU Y”. . .usually making matters ‘harder’ if you will. So if the law had kowtowed and fallen off, it was quite logical that Jesus would have (rightly) pointed out that the law had ‘gone off the rails’ when lawgivers ‘gave in’ to societal demands, but that GOD decreed something different.

The law that is given is prefaced by “These are the words the Lord spoke to all the assembly…” If this is something Moses made up, then the Ten Commandments could be equally an invention of Moses. No, I think I will accept the Bible as accurate in the account that is given.

 

[adrift]

The law that is given is prefaced by “These are the words the Lord spoke to all the assembly…” If this is something Moses made up, then the Ten Commandments could be equally an invention of Moses. No, I think I will accept the Bible as accurate in the account that is given.

I too accept the bible

Matthew 19:3-8

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
4 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”

8 He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Why then did Moses( not God) allow a bill of divorce? God gave the Law to Moses but it was Moses who allowed divorce according to scripture.