Synod fathers discuss Holy Communion for the remarried [CC]

[maryjk]

!!! 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.

.

The kid should have known.

He should have received instruction not only from his Sunday School teacher, but also from his own parents.

 

[pnewton]

I too accept the bible

Matthew 19:3-8

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.

Right. It is all data. It is all things that need to be considered when reconciling doctrines such as the insoluability of marriage with proper response to sins against marriage. God gave us both marriage, and in this case, a law that allowed for divorce. Likewise, God gave both the law of “an eye for an eye”, and the law of mercy that transcends that law without contradicting it.

 

[adrift]

Right. It is all data. It is all things that need to be considered when reconciling doctrines such as the insoluability of marriage with proper response to sins against marriage. God gave us both marriage, and in this case, a law that allowed for divorce. Likewise, God gave both the law of “an eye for an eye”, and the law of mercy that transcends that law without contradicting it.

Where does Jesus say that He gave the law for divorce. His answer is clear that it was Moses who allowed for divorce because of the hardness of hearts. I do not know why you keep saying God gave us divorce. The question that was asked was “why did Moses allow for divorce”. Nowhere do they say that God asked for divorce.

You make an interesting point on the “eye for an eye” the footnotes has this

4 [23-25] This section is known as the lex talionis, the law of tit for tat. The purpose of this law was not merely the enforcement of rigorous justice, but also the prevention of greater penalties than would be just. Christ refers to this passage when he exhorts Christians to cede their lawful rights for the sake of charity. Cf ⇒ Matthew 5:38-40
25 [38-42] See ⇒ Lev 24:20. The Old Testament commandment was meant to moderate vengeance; the punishment should not exceed the injury done. Jesus forbids even this proportionate retaliation. Of the five examples that follow, only the first deals directly with retaliation for evil; the others speak of liberality.

 

[pnewton]

Where does Jesus say that He gave the law for divorce.

I will have to look it up. It is one of the first verses of the section in Deuteronomy that prefaced the giving of the Lord. “Thus sayeth the Lord”, or “The Lord spoke saying”, depending on translation.

As to what Jesus made when he said Moses allowed for a writ of divorce, there are several possibilities. One is, as has been pointed out, is that God gave the Law to Moses and then Moses allowed for it. Another could have simple been idiomatic speech. I tend toward the latter because of way Paul also shortens the “Law of Moses”. If it can be shortened, personification is a common human way of making idioms. In the Jewish mind, the law was Moses and Moses was the Law.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Right. It is all data. It is all things that need to be considered when reconciling doctrines such as the insoluability of marriage with proper response to sins against marriage. God gave us both marriage, and in this case, a law that allowed for divorce. Likewise, God gave both the law of “an eye for an eye”, and the law of mercy that transcends that law without contradicting it.

Wait, hold hard.

God gave us humans freedom, but He also ‘permitted’ laws which allowed for human slavery. You’ll find that those who enacted those latter laws claimed God’s support. So --could they have been wrong? Could Moses have been wrong?

 

[pnewton]

Wait, hold hard.

God gave us humans freedom, but He also ‘permitted’ laws which allowed for human slavery. You’ll find that those who enacted those latter laws claimed God’s support. So --could they have been wrong? Could Moses have been wrong?

No, I do not see how Moses could be consider wrong for doing what “the Lord spoke”, any more than the Church could be wrong for following what Jesus said when on the Earth as a man.

 

[adrift]

I will have to look it up. It is one of the first verses of the section in Deuteronomy that prefaced the giving of the Lord. “Thus sayeth the Lord”, or “The Lord spoke saying”, depending on translation.

As to what Jesus made when he said Moses allowed for a writ of divorce, there are several possibilities. One is, as has been pointed out, is that God gave the Law to Moses and then Moses allowed for it. Another could have simple been idiomatic speech. I tend toward the latter because of way Paul also shortens the “Law of Moses”. If it can be shortened, personification is a common human way of making idioms. In the Jewish mind, the law was Moses and Moses was the Law.

I appreciate you giving the versus as I have never heard of God authorizing divorce as Jesus says the opposite. Jesus said that it wasn’t this way from the first so I am genuinely confuse as to why God would give a law for divorce. God did give us the law and that is a whole conversation by itself. I will be very interested in the verse that says as part of that law God allowed divorce.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s sacrilege for any Communicant to break and share the host. That’s objectively wrong.

But, Corki, I don’t think that’s absolute. Don’t forget, before Vatican II, it was considered a sacrilege for any laity to touch the sacred species or even the paten with the smallest particles. Now, of course, with the right permissions, laity can distribute from and receive in the hands.

 

[Corki]

But, Corki, I don’t think that’s absolute. Don’t forget, before Vatican II, it was considered a sacrilege for any laity to touch the sacred species or even the paten with the smallest particles. Now, of course,** with the right permissions,** laity can distribute from and receive in the hands.

And without the right permissions, it’s sacrilege.

It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.[181] Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

 

[adrift]

And without the right permissions, it’s sacrilege.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

Illicit is not equivalent to sacrilege. Illicit means unlawful. For instance, it is illicit for a priest to use a glass chalice but it wouldn’t make communion invalid nor would it be a sacrilege. Sacrilege is a desecration like stepping on the host deliberately. I don’t believe that you would call this act a desecration.

 

[pnewton]

I appreciate you giving the versus as I have never heard of God authorizing divorce as Jesus says the opposite. .

Here is a good example of having two wives

Exodus 20:1

And God spoke all these words:

Then jump to 21:9

"If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital

rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money."

As far as Deuteronomy, it should be read as a book. Moses is speaking, but he is relaying the words that God spoke to him. As it is Sacred Scripture, we can discard the idea that Moses was lying through his teeth.
So here are a few places where Moses credited God with the giving of this law

4:1-2,5
Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you…See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it

6:1-2
These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life.

8:6
Observe the commands of the Lord your God, walking in obedience to him and revering him.

11:1
Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always.

Anyway, that is the point of Deuteronomy. Yes, they called Moses the Lawgiver and called it the Law of Moses, but there was always the understanding it came straight from God. Even today, while we number the Ten Commandments differently, we hold them in reverence as straight from God.

What I find ironic is that in most areas of contrast between Jehovah in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New, it is almost always (every thing but divorce) the God of the Old Testament that is seen as wrathful and gentle Jesus that is seen as merciful. The truth, as we know, is that there is but one God and there is no division of will. As Jesus never contradicted the Mosaic Law, understanding the differences can yield insight in all areas as to what is absolute and what is not. Theologians do not disregard this important data like this. Thus we have disagreement between two orthodox bishops, like Kasper and Burke.

The Church teaches black and white truth, yet we are also still in need of the Holy Spirit leading us into more truth. That is because not everything is known. That which is not known is not black and white doctrine. I will not call it gray, but rather magenta.

 

[ProVobis]

Illicit is not equivalent to sacrilege. Illicit means unlawful. For instance, it is illicit for a priest to use a glass chalice but it wouldn’t make communion invalid nor would it be a sacrilege. Sacrilege is a desecration like stepping on the host deliberately. I don’t believe that you would call this act a desecration.

In any case, the sense of sacredness has been compromised IMO. The sacrifice as offered by the high priest alone, is now made available in a somewhat “priesthood of the laity” fashion. I realize the substance has not changed but the perception of what it represents and the awesomeness of the event becomes harder and harder when it becomes easier and easier to become so involved in such a casual and perfunctory manner.

 

[Corki]

Illicit is not equivalent to sacrilege. Illicit means unlawful. For instance, it is illicit for a priest to use a glass chalice but it wouldn’t make communion invalid nor would it be a sacrilege. Sacrilege is a desecration like stepping on the host deliberately. I don’t believe that you would call this act a desecration.

You are correct that everything illicit is not sacrilege. But desecration is even more serious than sacrilege. Something can be sacrilege without being desecration though all desecration involves sacrilege.

Full Definition of SACRILEGE

1
: a technical and not necessarily intrinsically outrageous violation (as improper reception of a sacrament) of what is sacred because consecrated to God

The “intrinsically outrageous violation” would be desecration. Improper handling of the Eucharist would be sagrilege.

 

[ProVobis]

You are correct that everything illicit is not sacrilege. But desecration is even more serious than sacrilege. Something can be sacrilege without being desecration though all desecration involves sacrilege.

I agree with you. I believe Christ drove out the moneychangers for that same reason.

 

[adrift]

Here is a good example of having two wives

Exodus 20:1

It is without a doubt that the Patriarchs had more than one wife. They also had concubines. I don’t know what you meant It isn’t disputed, I thought, that there was divorce. Exodus 20 is the Ten commandments.

Then jump to 21:9

I don’t like taking things out of context and stringing a lot of scripture together.

As far as Deuteronomy, it should be read as a book. Moses is speaking, but he is relaying the words that God spoke to him. As it is Sacred Scripture, we can discard the idea that Moses was lying through his teeth.
So here are a few places where Moses credited God with the giving of this law

Take a look at the commentary for Deuteronomy 24 as this is specifically about divorce.

1 [1-4] This law is directly concerned only with forbidding divorced couples to remarry each other, and indirectly with checking hasty divorces, by demanding sufficient cause and certain legal formalities. Divorce itself is taken for granted and tolerated as an existing custom whose evils this law seeks to lessen. Cf ⇒ Deut 22:19, ⇒ 29; ⇒ Malachi 2:14-16. Christ gave the authentic interpretation of this law: “Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away your wives; but it was not so from the beginning” (⇒ Matthew 19:8, 9).

Moses didn’t lie but his interpretation was because of the hardness of men. You wouldn’t say that Jesus was lying either. Jesus did not say it was from God. He said it wasn’t from God as Jesus clarifies that it wasn’t that way from the beginning.

 

[adrift]

You are correct that everything illicit is not sacrilege. But desecration is even more serious than sacrilege. Something can be sacrilege without being desecration though all desecration involves sacrilege.

The “intrinsically outrageous violation” would be desecration. Improper handling of the Eucharist would be sagrilege.

No it wouldn’t. Desecration is

The profanation of a sacred person, place, or thing. Churches are desecrated by notorious crimes committed within them, such as willful murder or use of the sacred edifice for godless and sordid purposes. a desecrated church must first be reconciled before Divine Services can be held there
Profanation
The desecration of something holy by using or treating a sacred person, place, or thing as though it were not sacred but merely secular or profane. Thus profanity in speech is the use of God’s name or of one of the saints without due regard for its sacred character.

from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary
The child handing the Eucharist is not sacrilege. It is illicit only.

 

[ProVobis]

The child handing the Eucharist is not sacrilege. It is illicit only.

Prior to Vatican II, it certainly was considered a sacrilege for any laity to touch the Eucharist. Maybe it brought about unintended conclusions but my point was that it was not absolute. If anything desecration is more absolute. Either something is sacred or it isn’t; therefore either it can be desacralized or it can’t be.

 

[pnewton]

Jesus did not say it was from God. He said it wasn’t from God as Jesus clarifies that it wasn’t that way from the beginning.

The first statement is true; the second is not. He did not say that the writ of divorce was not from God. If you read this, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way," as equivalent to saying it isn’t from God, then the disagreement is grammatical, not theological. It simply does not say that.

 

[adrift]

The first statement is true; the second is not. He did not say that the writ of divorce was not from God. If you read this, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way," as equivalent to saying it isn’t from God, then the disagreement is grammatical, not theological. It simply does not say that.

Let us take a look once more at the passage

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." Jesus says that from the beginning there was no divorce

7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” They ask why Moses allowed a bill of divorce which went against what God had ordained

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.The reason He gives is their hardness of heart.

It cannot be construed in this context that God made divorce. It is obvious that God never intended for there to be divorce.

 

[pnewton]

It cannot be construed in this context that God made divorce. It is obvious that God never intended for there to be divorce.

God never purposed for Man to fall into sin either.