Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[PRmerger]

Well you sometimes confuse me because you talk about above paygrade **so I didn’t know **if it was above the Bereans paygrade to search to see what’s true? I’ll take it no that it wasn’t.

I find your feigned difficulty in understanding amusing. “So you didn’t know”, eh?



At any rate…

Surely you can go from “There are some things that the Bible describes that God does not endorse. ALSO! There are some things in the Bible that God does endorse!”…

to this similar paradigm: “There are some things which are above our paygrade. ALSO! There are some things which are at our paygrade!”

How do we discern?

Well, we use our faith and our reason.

We use the guidance of the Catholic Church to steer us in the right direction.

 

[TEPO]

I find your feigned difficulty in understanding amusing. “So you didn’t know”, eh?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll3oeqQXbe1qbvaudo1_500.gif

At any rate…

Surely you can go from “There are some things that the Bible describes that God does not endorse. ALSO! There are some things in the Bible that God does endorse!”…

to this similar paradigm: “There are some things which are above our paygrade. ALSO! There are some things which are at our paygrade!”

How do we discern?

Well, we use our faith and our reason.

We use the guidance of the Catholic Church to steer us in the right direction.

Well, PR. I found some opinion pieces by Augustine on the subject, but nothing verified as official -though he does seem to suggest that God did permit it without damning consequences. I thought I saw it somewhere before, but I could be mistaken -and I’m not actually disagreeing with you because I have no opinion of my own on the subject.

…but if St. Peter was in fact given the keys to bind and loosen here on earth, one of the main things he can use those keys on are the Canon Laws. He can’t change everlasting truths such as the virgin mothers ascension, but the Mass and the conditions surrounding the Sacraments are fair game for change. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t divorce and remarriage fall into that category? Surely to loosen or bind laws here on earth will have an effect in heaven -as to whether someone may enter or not. Maybe Jesus left that open because God has left it open, and what God was able to do, the Church can still do. In a way. If so, what a gift it would be.

 

[muffindell]

It seems the church doesn’t allow divorce (the RC church doesn’t recognise divorce or any discription), only an invalid marriage(what ever that is!); us sinners are all doomed, the RC church turns it’s back upon us, but God will never turn his back on us.

 

[Burdock]

It seems the church doesn’t allow divorce (the RC church doesn’t recognise divorce or any discription), only an invalid marriage(what ever that is!); us sinners are all doomed, the RC church turns it’s back upon us, but God will never turn his back on us.

Sadly I have decided to leave and go back to my previous church, the catholic church in my opinion also lacks warmth and fellowship, and I am well aware that we dont go to church to socialise before anyone starts pointing that out as has happened before when ive mentioned it, but it is part of being a christian, no one from the cc has contacted me to see if im ok .

 

[Brendan]

The Holy Father does keep talking about God’s surprises.

Anything in regards to a divorce and remarriage that is not consistent with the words of Christ, by definition, is not from Christ

And that is how we can judge if any ‘surprises’ are from God, ,or elsewhere.

 

[Burdock]

It seems the church doesn’t allow divorce (the RC church doesn’t recognise divorce or any discription), only an invalid marriage(what ever that is!); us sinners are all doomed, the RC church turns it’s back upon us, but God will never turn his back on us.

Sadly I have decided to leave and go back to my previous church, the catholic church in my opinion also lacks warmth and fellowship, and I am well aware that we dont go to church to socialise before anyone starts pointing that out as has happened before when ive mentioned it, but it is part of being a christian, no one from the cc has contacted me to see if im ok .

 

[Lost_Sheep]

no, But do you have that same view for anyone hurt by the sin of another? Rape, murder, torture, etc… Sometimes people cannot be made whole after someone else sins and it affects them. Most certainly we do not say “tough noogies” to people who have been harmed by the sin of others, but we also cannot put the egg back in the shell sometimes. That is life. And humans being what they are will go outside of God and His Church to seek to remedies the situation. And then, when they want back in, they seem to not understand that they went outside of the construct in chasing something they should not have. The egg has been shattered, the way back to eternal happiness may require some serious sacrifices on earth.

Yes, but a crime victim has options. They can seek counseling if they want to. They can take legal action or civil action. In time, they can come to terms with it.

Here, the Church is saying "Yes, your spouse dumped you but you are stuck being chaste for the rest of your life even though you committed no sin (if you want to stay in the good graces of the Church, that is.) That’s analogous to Sharia law where rape victims get stoned to death.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, PR. I found some opinion pieces by Augustine on the subject, but nothing verified as official -though he does seem to suggest that God did permit it without damning consequences. I thought I saw it somewhere before, but I could be mistaken -and I’m not actually disagreeing with you because I have no opinion of my own on the subject.

Yes. There is no “official” Church teaching regarding the meaning behind the multiple marriages described in the OT.

…but if St. Peter was in fact given the keys to bind and loosen here on earth, one of the main things he can use those keys on are the Canon Laws. He can’t change everlasting truths such as the virgin mothers ascension, but the Mass and the conditions surrounding the Sacraments are fair game for change. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t divorce and remarriage fall into that category? Surely to loosen or bind laws here on earth will have an effect in heaven -as to whether someone may enter or not. Maybe Jesus left that open because God has left it open, and what God was able to do, the Church can still do. In a way. If so, what a gift it would be.

Right. He can’t declare that Mary is now part of the godhead. He can’t proclaim that we were not ransomed from death by the Lamb of God. He can’t decide that the Bible isn’t the Word of God.

If he does declare that the divorced and re-married may now receive communion, we will have to assess and be taught how this can be. I don’t see how it could be permissible, but that’s why I’m in sales, and not management.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems the church doesn’t allow divorce (the RC church doesn’t recognise divorce or any discription),

You need to learn your faith a wee bit better.

The Catholic Church does allow divorce.

Also, I am curious, let’s say there’s a couple that had NO adultery at all in its past, divorced each other and then re-married other people…what do you say about them? Are they in adulterous second marriages?

 

[TEPO]

Anything in regards to a divorce and remarriage that is not consistent with the words of Christ, by definition, is not from Christ

And that is how we can judge if any ‘surprises’ are from God, ,or elsewhere.

But if Christ is God, and God offered indulgences to the Jews such as polygamy, then that means Christ did that.

…unless we are to now suddenly take it upon ourselves to assume that Mosaic law was riddled with fabrications. That’s a slippery slope, because where then do we stop? Do we discredit all of the Old Testament where Jesus didn’t?

I think divorce and remarriage is completely unGodly and unforgiving. It’s the opposite of love, no doubt. But the Laws of the Church are based on the Church in the world. We reject baptism for children out of wedlock too -denying babies salvation. We rely on other religions to save their souls. But John the Baptist didn’t hold back on offering the Holy Spirit to those who had no clue what Catholicism was, before Jesus was even known.

Clearly the law of the Church can be factored by a willingness to save! It has been done and it can be done again.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Here, the Church is saying "Yes, your spouse dumped you but you are stuck being chaste for the rest of your life even though you committed no sin (if you want to stay in the good graces of the Church, that is.) That’s analogous to Sharia law where rape victims get stoned to death.

While I think I understand your larger point, I do think that is a rather extreme analogy.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems the church doesn’t allow divorce (the RC church doesn’t recognise divorce or any discription), only an invalid marriage(what ever that is!); us sinners are all doomed, the RC church turns it’s back upon us, but God will never turn his back on us.

Catholics who go against the Church’s Matrimonial sacrament and remarry outside and without the Church seem to be the ones who are turning their backs. Just sayin…

 

[phil19034]

There is not a tiny bit of dissonance. Clerics are held to a higher standard. That has always been the case. It is laid out in Holy Scripture. That you seem to not understand that is what’s confusing. Clerics are often defrocked for serious sins at least in Orthodoxy. Is that not the case in the Catholic Church?

Hi Seraphim - it’s pretty simply. NO ONE may get married AFTER receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Not in the Catholic Church and not in the Orthodox Church. The ONLY time a dispensation is even considered is if the Priest or Deacon has young children after the death of the wife.

No priest is allowed to get married. Married men are allowed to become priests, but priests are NOT allowed to get married.

That is why priests cannot get married a 2nd time after the death of their wife.

This does NOT apply to laity. Our vows say “till death do us part”… do yours?

 

[phil19034]

It’s very simple. Neither Jesus nor Paul were bishops. Both were travelling preachers. Episcopacy and the related organizational structure is a human invention.

St. Paul WAS a Bishop. He may or may not have been a Bishop for one Diocese for a long time, but he was an ordained Bishop. Just like we have Bishops today who do not lead a Diocese, but they are still ordained Bishops.

St. Paul was a Bishop of many different locations. He was a missionary Bishop. He founded a Church and then moved on to the next location.

But he was a Bishop. All of the Apostles were Bishops. The idea that he was not a Bishop is simply wrong.

Furthermore, by stating “Episcopacy and the related organizational structure is a human invention” you are saying that the Sacrament of Holy Orders was not created by Christ and is man made.

I’m sorry, but that’s not the case. All the Sacraments were created by God the Son.

 

[phil19034]

Look at the Canons of St Basil (middle 4th century) and the Council of Trullo (late 7th century) for a start. Both prescribes penances for remarriage.

The Catholic Church NEVER accepted the Council of Trullo. Not one 102 disciplinary canons of this council was accepted by the West.

The East even tried to force the Latin Church to have married priests. The West was working to have a celibate priesthood out of discipline for the WEST only but the East tried to force the west to have married priests.

You can even read about it on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council

Also here: catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/orthodox_divorce_marriage.php

Trullo was approved by the Greeks due to pressure from the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian II, who called and presided over the council.

The Pope refused to ratify it so Emperor Justinian II ordered for the Pope to be abducted and brought to Constantinople to be arrested (and most likely killed if he didn’t change his mind). The Pope refused and was protected and never abducted.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yes, but a crime victim has options. They can seek counseling if they want to. They can take legal action or civil action. In time, they can come to terms with it.

Here, the Church is saying "Yes, your spouse dumped you but you are stuck being chaste for the rest of your life even though you committed no sin (if you want to stay in the good graces of the Church, that is.) That’s analogous to Sharia law where rape victims get stoned to death.

No, this is not true. I is not true in our own country and our own time today and even less so in other countries in other times. Victims do not always have recourse. Especially murdered ones. You seem to be viewing this as a “rights” issue when no one has the right to go outside of God for the sake of another affection and sex. And the consequences of that cannot always be remedied. Just like the consequences of a mother who is a druggie or an alcoholic may indeed affect the innocent child born, who may be born so severely damaged that they may never get married themselves or be able to function in life.

 

[Phil502]

No, this is not true. I is not true in our own country and our own time today and even less so in other countries in other times. Victims do not always have recourse. Especially murdered ones. You seem to be viewing this as a “rights” issue when no one has the right to go outside of God for the sake of another affection and sex. And the consequences of that cannot always be remedied. Just like the consequences of a mother who is a druggie or an alcoholic may indeed affect the innocent child born, who may be born so severely damaged that they may never get married themselves or be able to function in life.

The Church should not be in the business of not giving victims recourse and they aren’t, they give Annulments to people. That’s the way out. The annulment questions are kind of tedious and hard to answer honestly especially after extended periods of time,hopefully this can be corrected and the church will pick up some good people and they can fully participate. Better late than never and I remember a parable that says as much.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The Church should not be in the business of not giving victims recourse and they aren’t, they give Annulments to people. That’s the way out. The annulment questions are kind of tedious and hard to answer honestly especially after extended periods of time,hopefully this can be corrected and the church will pick up some good people and they can fully participate. Better late than never and I remember a parable that says as much.

An annulment can only declare that there was no marriage. It cannot be a “way out” for some who did contract a binding union of one flesh. The poster I was responding to was putting forth that the marriage was valid, but that one spouse was deserted. An annulment would not come into play in this hypothetical.

 

[phil19034]

Sadly I have decided to leave and go back to my previous church, the catholic church in my opinion also lacks warmth and fellowship, and I am well aware that we dont go to church to socialise before anyone starts pointing that out as has happened before when ive mentioned it, but it is part of being a christian, no one from the cc has contacted me to see if im ok .

Burdock - I will say a prayer for you. I understand what you mean about “lacks warmth and fellowship” but I must say that it depends on the Parish. Some parishes are very big into warmth & fellowship and others are more contemplative.

It’s also my experience that English speaking Catholics in first world countries have a **tendency **to be “colder” for some reason than Italian, Polish & Spanish speaking Catholics, plus African Catholics (even English speaking ones). I’m not 100% sure why that is (though I have theories).

But the notion that the Catholic Church “lacks warmth & fellowship” is not universal.

In regards to divorced Catholics… it’s pretty simple: at least try to receive an annulment. The problem is that so many do not even try to get one. We either believe 100% in the Church, that it’s infallible, or we do not. I used to be in an ill-regular marriage and had to refrain from communion to protect my soul from the sin of sacrilege. I’m happy that the Church was protecting me, and now I can receive after following a path back to Grace.

God Speed to you and yours.

 

[TEPO]

The Church should not be in the business of giving victims recourse and they aren’t

The Church does give recourse to victims though in many ways. We’re all victims to the reality of sin. I know that’s not what you were talking about specifically, but I think it’s important enough to point out.