Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[PRmerger]

I agree with muffindell, the innocent party should be allowed to recieve the eucharist if c they remarry, they were faithful c in the first marriage, why should they be made to suffer.The cardinals are out of touch.

Because that’s what Jesus said: divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

Adultery is a mortal sin and those with mortal sins ought not receive.

I cant stay in such a church, ive stayed c 3 yrs, I will go back b to my previous church.

Then that is the essence of creating a god in one’s own image. Worshipping at the altar of the Almighty Self rather than the Almighty.

If your god doesn’t disagree with you, Burdock, on multiple levels, then you may be worshipping a glorified version of yourself.

 

[Burdock]

Could you address One point’s argument?

Theres no point, it just goes round in circles. Im leaving the forum.

 

[PRmerger]

Theres no point, it just goes round in circles. Im leaving the forum.

You ought to be able to always have a reason for the hope that is in you (that’s from the Bible) and to be able to defend your position.

When you leave, it makes it appear as if you don’t have an answer to the question posed to you.

 

[OraLabora]

Celibacy is not a prison sentence. its not a condemnation. many people find themselves in situations they did not choose like illness or gay people who cannot marry.

Indeed but consider the case of someone abandoned so her his or her spouse leaves the abandoned spouse with young children. (S)he remarries young to a new spouse who accepts the children, and is a good parent to them. Now the couple,perhaps one or both lapsed, want to return to the Church.

Perhaps you think it’s easy for them to just turn off their sexuality like a light switch. Illness is one thing, perhaps the illness also kills the libido. But two healthy people is another matter.

For the sake of argument though, let’s assume the couple want to live in complete continence, but find it very difficult. How do you propose to deal with this pastorally without the benefit of sacramental grace? Basically all they can do in Church life is sit in a pew, pray, and watch others access sacramental grace. They cannot even avail themselves of confession, a wonderful sacrament which when coupled to the Eucharist, allows one to grow in holiness. But our hypothetical couple won’t have any of that.

We are essentially saying make yourself well before entering the hospital, but you’re free to come in and watch others get well. But don’t expect any medicine because you’re a special class of patient.

This kind of rigidity in application of doctrine makes as much a mockery of the doctrine as the Pharisees made of The Law.

 

[PRmerger]

Theres no point, it just goes round in circles. Im leaving the forum.

This is like someone coming here and saying, “I believe that penicillin is the worst medicine for strep throat!”

Another person counters with evidence that penicillin does indeed cure strep throat, (usually).

The anti-penicillin person now says, “This is ridiculous! It’s going around in circles! I am leaving!”.

The only conclusion we can draw is: the anti-penicillin person doesn’t know how to respond to the very clear evidence that he is wrong.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with muffindell, the innocent party should be allowed to recieve the eucharist if c they remarry, they were faithful c in the first marriage, why should they be made to suffer.The cardinals are out of touch. I cant stay in such a church, ive stayed c 3 yrs, I will go back b to my previous church.

Sadly, in the UK around forty percent of marriages end in divorce, why would they even want to come into the church under these conditions?

Perhaps extend the opłatek to them? It works for the Poles and others.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_wafer

 

[PRmerger]

I just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying you’re selling something that is indeed troubling and makes little sense to you? If you were a car salesman and management told you to sell a car that troubled you, you would?

I don’t sell anything I don’t believe in, Sy.

I try to understand why management is promoting a product I don’t see the value in.

I don’t just decide, “Management is wrong. I am the ultimate authority on what’s good to sell.”

To make another metaphor, borrowing from the great Cardinal Newman: let’s say I’m in a math class and I can’t understand the answer the professor is giving.

I don’t leave the math class to find another math class that gives me the answer that I got.

Rather, I struggle–read, study, discuss, research-- to find the answer that matches the math professor’s.

“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”. --Cardinal John Henry Newman.

 

[OraLabora]

This is like someone coming here and saying, “I believe that penicillin is the worst medicine for strep throat!”

Another person counters with evidence that penicillin does indeed cure strep throat, (usually).

The anti-penicillin person now says, “This is ridiculous! It’s going around in circles! I am leaving!”.

The only conclusion we can draw is: the anti-penicillin person doesn’t know how to respond to the very clear evidence that he is wrong.

The problem isn’t the medicine, it’s in fact the lack of access to it. He’s right, this is going around in circles. But the message of mercy needs to be heard, and the nonsense of a one-size-fits-all pastoral approach exposed.

I’m a cradle, then lapsed then revert Catholic. I ain’t going anywhere, the Church is my home even when it lacks human warmth in applying doctrine. It is refreshing to me that under Francis, the Church is at least prepared to listen to us, that all-important first word of the prologue of the Rule of Saint Benedict. I urge Burdock to stick around and let Francis lead us through this process.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem isn’t the medicine, it’s in fact the lack of access to it. He’s right, this is going around in circles.

I think a very good refutation to his point was presented.

That he is leaving now, without responding to the refutation, indicates that he doesn’t have an answer to that.

 

[Brandall]

I want to start this by saying that my wife and I have both been in our first marriage for 26 years and we don’t anticipate it ending. Divorce happens a lot and we have been fortunate to struggle together to make this thing work. If we had not had that happen, we would be in a different boat. In all honesty, I might see things differently if my situation was different.

There cannot be any change in whether or not divorced/remarried and not annulled can receive communion.

The Church has taught me that Jesus said that if someone divorces and remarries, they are committing adultery.

The Church has taught me that we cannot receive the Eucharist unworthily so we must be in a state of grace to receive.

The Church has taught that for a sinner to return to a state of grace, they must confess their sins and repent.

To repent means to be contrite and turn away from sin or plan to sin no more.

Without sincere repentance, the priest cannot offer absolution. I don’t think the priest would believe the sincerity of most couples that they would not sin further.

The Church teaches that the magisterium of the Church is infallible in faith and morals.

The Church teaches that it is led by God’s Holy Spirit.

The Church has taught that divorced/remarried without annulment cannot receive the Eucharist for most of it’s existence.

If the Church changed and allowed divorced/remarried without an annulment how would they explain it? Would they say that the Holy Spirit failed them for nearly 2000 years but is now leading them? Would they say that all of those other infallible teachings were right except this one? Did God change their mind about this teaching of adultery? There doesn’t seem to be a way to accomplish this.

There are some things that God is very serious about. The way it is stated in the bible makes me thing that this is one of these.

I feel badly for those that cannot receive but man cannot change the teachings of God. There have been some examples in this thread of people with cheating spouses that divorced and remarried and cannot now receive the Eucharist. I have no intimate knowledge of the procedure but it sounds as if that type of situation might qualify for an annulment. Please start the processes of an annulment. If you need help ask for it.

Personally, I’m going to cling to what I have been taught by the church. There seems to be no way this can change and I refuse to think any other way. Honestly though, I can’t imagine why Bishops of the Church are bringing these things up. Do they believe they can change an infallible teaching or are they just bringing it up for examination knowing full well they can’t make this change?

There are those that think this might help retain members in the church or bring back former members. I truly don’t think it would make much, if any difference. If the people wanted to come to church they would. The percent of active Catholics has to be very low. In our church of 15000, there are about 3000-4000 that attend mass any given week. I imagine it’s similar in most churches.

 

[PRmerger]

I urge Burdock to stick around and let Francis lead us through this process.

I, too, urge Burdock to stick around.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t just decide, “Management is wrong. I am the ultimate authority on what’s good to sell.”

Incidentally, even if Management is wrong, in the case of Christ’s Body, we still need to obey and submit.

Wasn’t Moses leading the Israelites in the wrong direction in the desert?

Don’t we have to obey our parents even when they are fallible?

Weren’t the Apostles wrong in some of the ways they initially managed the Church?

Yes to all of the above. Yet it would be a mistake to leave in all of the situations because Management is mistaken.

 

[ProVobis]

This kind of rigidity in application of doctrine makes as much a mockery of the doctrine as the Pharisees made of The Law.

Ora, you can’t be serious.

Scandal is still scandal. Maybe it’s struggling in your vocabulary but someone who manages to latch on to someone else for support is hardly someone to feel sorry for. At least in my book, it is. One who thinks adultery is the only viable alternate can’t be that serious about his or her Christian faith. It’s not a matter of what the Church does or doesn’t do.

Wish them well, act neighborly, be friends with them, take them out to dinner, sit next to them in church, fine. You’ve done what Christ asked. The rest is up to them.

 

[unafraid]

With the push for frequent communion, I’m afraid the Church might have to do a 180 on such a push. But I’m with you.

Frequent communion is the greatest gift the church could bestow upon a world gripped by the snares of Satan. The Blessed sacrament is the most powerful healing force on the planet. I pray for a day when all of mankind reaches mystical conversion, and all partake of this unique living treasure. The result would no doubt be peace and harmony on earth.

The Holy Mass exists for the Eucharist, as does the priesthood. In truth, there should be droves of people lined up for miles outside of every church constantly…seeking the power and glory of the Blessed Sacrament. That should be the norm. It would be glorious, and transformational.

Christ does not shun any who seek Him out. The Holy Redeemer’s arms are wide open.

 

[PRmerger]

Christ does not shun any who seek Him out. The Holy Redeemer’s arms are wide open.

No doubt.

But the unrepentant seeker needs to repent first. Then go before Him.

 

[OraLabora]

Incidentally, even if Management is wrong, in the case of Christ’s Body, we still need to obey and submit.

Wasn’t Moses leading the Israelites in the wrong direction in the desert?

Don’t we have to obey our parents even when they are fallible?

Weren’t the Apostles wrong in some of the ways they initially managed the Church?

Yes to all of the above. Yet it would be a mistake to leave in all of the situations because Management is mistaken.

We have to publicly assent to Church teaching even if we privately disagree, and we have to model our own behaviour on Church teaching. However we have been given an unprecedented opportunity to be heard through our bishops, and it think it’s fair to speak up about where we believe they should lead the Church. Ultimately, the Holy Father will decide and we will have to assent to that.

For the record I have no dog in this hunt. Although my own marriage was irregular for many years, it has always been to the same woman and her to the same man, for 26 years. It is now valid having been convalidated. Nor am I homosexual. But I have a great deal of sympathy for those who have those crosses to bear. We all have our crosses, self included. I can’t imagine bearing mine without the sacraments. My heart goes out to those who must.

 

[PRmerger]

We have to publicly assent to Church teaching even if we privately disagree, and we have to model our own behaviour on Church teaching. However we have been given an unprecedented opportunity to be heard through our bishops, and it think it’s fair to speak up about where we believe they should lead the Church. Ultimately, the Holy Father will decide and we will have to assent to that.

Yep.

 

[ProVobis]

In truth, there should be droves of people lined up for miles outside of every church constantly…

So should be the confession lines as well.

 

[OraLabora]

Ora, you can’t be serious.

Scandal is still scandal. Maybe it’s struggling in your vocabulary but someone who manages to latch on to someone else for support is hardly someone to feel sorry for. At least in my book, it is. One who thinks adultery is the only viable alternate can’t be that serious about his or her Christian faith. It’s not a matter of what the Church does or doesn’t do.

Wish them well, act neighborly, be friends with them, take them out to dinner, sit next to them in church, fine. You’ve done what Christ asked. The rest is up to them.

I am serious.

Repentant does not always mean immediately in compliance. Conversion is a process, not an instant. There is an “aha” moment, but as we are all of varying strength, attaining holiness will take time. The Church needs to facilitate that process for those truly wishing to enter it. The scandal is those who truly don’t care.

 

[ProVobis]

Repentant does not always mean immediately in compliance. Conversion is a process, not an instant. There is an “aha” moment, but as we are all of varying strength, attaining holiness will take time. The Church needs to facilitate that process for those truly wishing to enter it. The scandal is those who truly don’t care.

I agree.