Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[PaulinVA]

My view is that we have to assent, which is a bit nuanced. That means we will be bound by what comes out of the synod, regardless of whether we agree or not. …

Who am I to argue? However he does give an example of “assent”, in that he publicly promotes the view of the Church even if in private, he has doubts.

You’ll also understand that I have a great deal of sympathy for those caught in irregular situations, who are only marginally in the Church. It must really hurt, especially if they’re faithful Catholics, to have a lifetime of payment extracted for a mistake of youth.

(please note: I don’t normally share personal information and it’s the first time I’ve related my story on this forum).

Thank you for you personal example. I do agree, as I said below, that assent is required. I, too, feel for people whose past mistakes haunt them throughout their life.

My comment about doing things under the mantle of “pastoral care” - that is how many denominations have watered down their doctrine until they don’t believe much of anything any more except Jesus loves us.

 

[Sirach2]

God bless that priest, Ora.

I think this is exactly what some of the hierarchy are talking about. Yes, there are basic rules and principles. But, as mentioned above, there was also a basic rule about not doing certain things on the Sabbath. Jesus didn’t say, “do away with the rule.” But he did give an example of “violating” it in order to save someone. That’s something we all need to think about.

Well said!

Today’s gospel reading was the accusation of the Pharisees that Jesus was doing His work under the power of Satan. They were so entrenched in the letter of the law, rather than its spirit, that they couldn’t discern or accept the truth before their very eyes in the person of Christ and his works.

 

[marymary1975]

it is either adultery or it is not.

One either needs to be in a state of grace to receive Communion or one does not.

Yeeeeeess…you are right on the money!! :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Neofight]

One either needs to be in a state of grace to receive Communion or one does not.

DISCLAIMER: I AM AN OBIDENT CATHOLIC. WHAT I OFFER BELOW IS JUST FOR DISCUSSION, AND NOT A CRITICISM OF CHURCH TEACHING, AND IS PRESENTED WITH CHARITY.

Bingo! This is the million dollar question…should one be in the state of grace to receive communion or not?

I have wondered, for the following reasons.

1. We refer to the Eucharist as the “source and summit” (I’ll refer from here on as the “prime sacrament”) of our faith. Now, I am not saying one Sacrament should be more important than another, but if we accept this claim, does it make the Eucharist the most important of sacraments?
2. If the Eucharist is the prime sacrament, why is reconciliation for moral sin a pre-requisite. Why can Eucharist as the prime sacrament only lead to absolution of venial and not mortal sin. If venial sin is damaging, but mortal sin is deadly, should not the prime
   sacrament be able to lead to the absolution of all sin.
3. We believe the Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ. Yet, we are not to approach the Eucharist if we are in the state of mortal sin. Did Christ want sinners kept from approaching him if they had not yet made atonement for their sins? If we came to Jesus in the state of mortal sin, but properly disposed to receive forgiveness (as we are to be when coming to reconciliation through the Sacrament of Penance), wouldn’t he embrace us, offer forgiveness, and absolution?

I’m not saying, as a result, that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is any less important than it is now. It would still be required, but perhaps in a specified time frame after receiving the Eucharist (if received in the state of mortal sin) to receive penance from our priests.

Christ had already given authorities to the apostles to forgive sins, in what we use as the Institution of Reconciliation, but then at the institution of the Eucharist, he did not deny Judas partaking in the Last Supper.

 

[irishpatrick]

My days of pray, pay, and obey are over.

But, you are correct - we have no control over what happens, only to accept or reject.

As lay Catholics, we either accept that Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, still guide the Church, or we do not. If God no longer guides His Church, we are all in a bad situation.

Obedience and trust.

 

[PRmerger]

1. We refer to the Eucharist as the “source and summit” (I’ll refer from here on as the “prime sacrament”) of our faith. Now, I am not saying one Sacrament should be more important than another, but if we accept this claim, does it make the Eucharist the most important of sacraments?

Yes.

1. If the Eucharist is the prime sacrament, why is reconciliation for moral sin a pre-requisite. Why can Eucharist as the prime sacrament only lead to absolution of venial and not mortal sin. If venial sin is damaging, but mortal sin is deadly, should not the prime
   sacrament be able to lead to the absolution of all sin.

Think of it this way:

The One Flesh Union is the most intimate way for a husband and wife to be united.

A spouse ought not approach his beloved if he has grievously offended her. (Gender is irrelevant here). He needs to reconcile with her first before he says, “Hey, honey, let’s get it on!”

Right? Are we agreed here?

If he has not first made amends, even the One Flesh Union, so intimate and profound and union-creating, cannot erase his offenses.

He needs to seek reconciliation first before the One Flesh Union. The One Flesh Union cannot erase what he did to offend her.

 

[irishpatrick]

DISCLAIMER: I AM AN OBIDENT CATHOLIC. WHAT I OFFER BELOW IS JUST FOR DISCUSSION, AND NOT A CRITICISM OF CHURCH TEACHING, AND IS PRESENTED WITH CHARITY.

Bingo! This is the million dollar question…should one be in the state of grace to receive communion or not?

I have wondered, for the following reasons.

1. We refer to the Eucharist as the “source and summit” (I’ll refer from here on as the “prime sacrament”) of our faith. Now, I am not saying one Sacrament should be more important than another, but if we accept this claim, does it make the Eucharist the most important of sacraments?
2. If the Eucharist is the prime sacrament, why is reconciliation for moral sin a pre-requisite. Why can Eucharist as the prime sacrament only lead to absolution of venial and not mortal sin. If venial sin is damaging, but mortal sin is deadly, should not the prime
   sacrament be able to lead to the absolution of all sin.
3. We believe the Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ. Yet, we are not to approach the Eucharist if we are in the state of mortal sin. Did Christ want sinners kept from approaching him if they had not yet made atonement for their sins? If we came to Jesus in the state of mortal sin, but properly disposed to receive forgiveness (as we are to be when coming to reconciliation through the Sacrament of Penance), wouldn’t he embrace us, offer forgiveness, and absolution?

I’m not saying, as a result, that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is any less important than it is now. It would still be required, but perhaps in a specified time frame after receiving the Eucharist (if received in the state of mortal sin) to receive penance from our priests.

Christ had already given authorities to the apostles to forgive sins, in what we use as the Institution of Reconciliation, but then at the institution of the Eucharist, he did not deny Judas partaking in the Last Supper.

We do not know the results of the Synod, and it is not in our control. We either obey and trust, or we do not. It seems to me that we have a ton of non-Catholic denominations because of a lack of obedience and trust. We have no way to know what the Holy Spirit is attempting to do at this point in salvation history, we cannot see the big picture.

Obedience and trust. We need to stop putting these issues into human pots (liberal and conservative) and start realizing that following Christ is not easy.

 

[PRmerger]

but then at the institution of the Eucharist, he did not deny Judas partaking in the Last Supper.

It’s a bit presumptuous to assume that Judas had mortal sin on his soul when he approached Christ for the First Eucharist.

You would have to know, firstly, what objectively sinful act he had committed prior to the Last Supper, secondly, what Judas’ state of mind was when he committed this mortal sin–if he knew it was gravely sinful and with his full faculties chose to do it anyway–and thirdly, that he had not confessed his sins to Christ before.

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you for you personal example. I do agree, as I said below, that assent is required. I, too, feel for people whose past mistakes haunt them throughout their life.

My comment about doing things under the mantle of “pastoral care” - that is how many denominations have watered down their doctrine until they don’t believe much of anything any more except Jesus loves us.

I like Agnes Therese’s example of breaking a rule to save a life (or a soul), but not necessarily getting rid of the rule. A bit like an ambulance or fire truck breaking the speed limit to race to the scene of an emergency. Once I was driving home from work, and a car sped by me crazily, weaving in and out of traffic, racing at top speed and I thought “man what a crazy driver”, and wished a cop would have pulled him over and thrown the book at him. Then I saw the car pull into local hospital (which was on my route home), right in front of the emergency department, and two very distraught parents ran in, the mother carrying an unresponsive child in her arms. It certainly humbled my thoughts…

Nobody would say we should do away with speed limits so anyone can race to the restaurant because they’re late for a lunch meeting. But it’s OK to break the limit to save a child’s life.

We need a change in the process and/or approach- some kind of change, and we need uniform practice by the clergy.

I agree completely that we need some sort of standards that the clergy can draw on to help them discern the pastoral care needed in individual circumstances. There’s a world of difference between a person/couple that earnestly desire to get closer to God and conform to the norms but are impeded from doing so for valid reasons, versus a couple that doesn’t really care and just want to do their own thing. It would be a shame if in one parish, the earnest couple were treated like the careless one, and in another the careless one were to receive the same treatment as the earnest one should receive.

 

[PRmerger]

Nobody would say we should do away with speed limits so anyone can race to the restaurant because they’re late for a lunch meeting. But it’s OK to break the limit to save a child’s life.

I understand the metaphor–and it’s a good one–but the problem is that we always seem to think that we deserve to be the exception to the rule–“yes, God said that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, but in my case, it’s really not.”

That’s a problem, IMHO.

 

[J_Peterson]

My view is that we have to assent, which is a bit nuanced. That means we will be bound by what comes out of the synod, regardless of whether we agree or not.

In my case it’s a moot point. I’m in a valid, sacramental marriage to the only woman I’ve ever been married to (and I’m her only husband as well), and I pray to God it remain that way. However I did not arrive at that point immediately. I married as a lapsed Catholic, in a civil ceremony, to a non-baptized woman. Eventually I came back to the Church and she was baptized as an Anglican, and some time (far too much time) later we had our marriage convalidated. It took time because my wife was not convinced for many years and frankly I had my doubts too because we went through several rocky periods. When things started going much better between us (maturity and wisdom being one of the few advantages of getting old and creaky), I approached the Chancery Office for a radical sanation, and was told to go back and try to get my wife to agree to convalidation first. Fortunately, at that point, she was ready.

A good priest did take the approach of “graduality” with me just after I reverted, admitting me to the sacraments as long as I was doing something to rectify my situation. After convalidation, I confessed to a good, holy and orthodox priest that I received unworthily. His reply floored me: “Ora, I will tell you what I would never say in public: without the graces of the sacrament, you would never have been able to save your marriage and have it convalidated”.

Who am I to argue? However he does give an example of “assent”, in that he publicly promotes the view of the Church even if in private, he has doubts.

You’ll also understand that I have a great deal of sympathy for those caught in irregular situations, who are only marginally in the Church. It must really hurt, especially if they’re faithful Catholics, to have a lifetime of payment extracted for a mistake of youth.

(please note: I don’t normally share personal information and it’s the first time I’ve related my story on this forum).

A bit off topic but it’s moments like the one you related that remind me that it is literally, truly Christ who we are confessing to. I always get exactly what I need in the confessional. A few weeks ago it was a sharp reproach which I sorely needed. Today there was a line and I was cutting it really close to mass time and I really wanted to receive communion. I confessed and he gave a quick absolution and I made it to mass on time.

 

[OraLabora]

DISCLAIMER: I AM AN OBIDENT CATHOLIC. WHAT I OFFER BELOW IS JUST FOR DISCUSSION, AND NOT A CRITICISM OF CHURCH TEACHING, AND IS PRESENTED WITH CHARITY.

Bingo! This is the million dollar question…should one be in the state of grace to receive communion or not?

I have wondered, for the following reasons.

1. We refer to the Eucharist as the “source and summit” (I’ll refer from here on as the “prime sacrament”) of our faith. Now, I am not saying one Sacrament should be more important than another, but if we accept this claim, does it make the Eucharist the most important of sacraments?
2. If the Eucharist is the prime sacrament, why is reconciliation for moral sin a pre-requisite. Why can Eucharist as the prime sacrament only lead to absolution of venial and not mortal sin. If venial sin is damaging, but mortal sin is deadly, should not the prime
   sacrament be able to lead to the absolution of all sin.
3. We believe the Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ. Yet, we are not to approach the Eucharist if we are in the state of mortal sin. Did Christ want sinners kept from approaching him if they had not yet made atonement for their sins? If we came to Jesus in the state of mortal sin, but properly disposed to receive forgiveness (as we are to be when coming to reconciliation through the Sacrament of Penance), wouldn’t he embrace us, offer forgiveness, and absolution?

I’m not saying, as a result, that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is any less important than it is now. It would still be required, but perhaps in a specified time frame after receiving the Eucharist (if received in the state of mortal sin) to receive penance from our priests.

Christ had already given authorities to the apostles to forgive sins, in what we use as the Institution of Reconciliation, but then at the institution of the Eucharist, he did not deny Judas partaking in the Last Supper.

I think the sacrament of reconciliation is absolutely vital to opening the door to reuniting with God. It is an absolute must, and I can say that it has been a life and soul saver in my own life.

The Eucharist is, I think, where we actually do reunite with God.

It is also the source of a massive amount of grace.

There’s no doubt that mortal sin cuts us off from God. I suspect in many of the cases where couples live in irregular situations, at least those who are earnest and truly want to reconcile with God, and are (often at least) thrust in circumstances over which they have only limited control, their “state of sin” may not in fact have mortal culpability. Compare that to my example of a couple only wanting to do their own thing.

I think anything that comes out of the Synod should, in fact must, include the sacrament of reconciliation as part of the plan of being re-admitted to the sacraments, if such is to happen for people in irregular situations such as I was in. This sacrament should in fact be a regular occurrence for irregular couples so that they might be able to move forward to the maximum extent possible, even if only very incrementally, towards full regularization. The sacrament will in fact help the priest discern if indeed the couple or one member of the couple earnestly desire regularization (in some cases the other spouse may be opposing it), and will be an instrument to help gauge progress and if necessary in case of inevitable steps backwards, help nudge them forwards again.

 

[marymary1975]

DISCLAIMER: I AM AN OBIDENT CATHOLIC. WHAT I OFFER BELOW IS JUST FOR DISCUSSION, AND NOT A CRITICISM OF CHURCH TEACHING, AND IS PRESENTED WITH CHARITY.

Bingo! This is the million dollar question…should one be in the state of grace to receive communion or not?

I have wondered, for the following reasons.

1. We refer to the Eucharist as the “source and summit” (I’ll refer from here on as the “prime sacrament”) of our faith. Now, I am not saying one Sacrament should be more important than another, but if we accept this claim, does it make the Eucharist the most important of sacraments?
2. If the Eucharist is the prime sacrament, why is reconciliation for moral sin a pre-requisite. Why can Eucharist as the prime sacrament only lead to absolution of venial and not mortal sin. If venial sin is damaging, but mortal sin is deadly, should not the prime
   sacrament be able to lead to the absolution of all sin.
3. We believe the Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ. Yet, we are not to approach the Eucharist if we are in the state of mortal sin. Did Christ want sinners kept from approaching him if they had not yet made atonement for their sins? If we came to Jesus in the state of mortal sin, but properly disposed to receive forgiveness (as we are to be when coming to reconciliation through the Sacrament of Penance), wouldn’t he embrace us, offer forgiveness, and absolution?

I’m not saying, as a result, that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is any less important than it is now. It would still be required, but perhaps in a specified time frame after receiving the Eucharist (if received in the state of mortal sin) to receive penance from our priests.

Christ had already given authorities to the apostles to forgive sins, in what we use as the Institution of Reconciliation, but then at the institution of the Eucharist, he did not deny Judas partaking in the Last Supper.

The answer to #2 and #3 is in 1 Corinthians 11:27. “Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the lord unworthy shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the lord.”

 

[fencersmother]

Oh heck.

let’s just let EVERYONE have communion ALL the time, no matter what. In fact, let’s just get rid of all those (pesky) rules. God *loves *all of us, and I’m sure He doesn’t look down with disdain at anyone who wishes to partake of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of his begotten Son.

I am sure my dog would like to have communion with his creator, so why can’t he just line up on Sunday at Mass too?

---

 

[dans0622]

I’ve had difficulty finding the actual comments of Card. Coccopalmiero but it seems to me that he was *not *talking about divorced/remarried/Communion in “grave and urgent” situations but using a different process to declare the first “marriage” invalid in “grave and urgent” circumstances. americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/three-ways-streamline-annulment-process

I’d also say that Card. Coccopalmiero’s position is pretty far to the “less” side of the “‘more or less’ the Church’s Attorney General” comparison.

Dan

 

[Memaw]

My days of pray, pay, and obey are over.

But, you are correct - we have no control over what happens, only to accept or reject.

Sounds like a cold understanding of your Catholic Faith!! So where do you go from here?? Tell the Church what to teach and reject what you don’t “like” if to doesn’t go your way. To reject Church teaching is very serious even if we think were ‘entitled’ to it. Look what happened to Lucifer and Adam and Eve when they did that! God Bless Memaw

 

[dans0622]

Sounds like a cold understanding of your Catholic Faith!! So where do you go from here?? Tell the Church what to teach and reject what you don’t “like” if to doesn’t go your way. To reject Church teaching is very serious even if we think were ‘entitled’ to it. Look what happened to Lucifer and Adam and Eve when they did that! God Bless Memaw

Well, playing devil’s advocate and taking Card. Kasper as a model, why is it so bad to reject ecclesiastical, disciplinary strictures? He seems to have no problem rejecting the current Church practice regarding the divorced/remarried/Communion issue. He’s disagreed with it for years and not really hidden his disagreement. I dare say he has rejected it.

Dan

 

[PaulinVA]

Sounds like a cold understanding of your Catholic Faith!!

Okay, thank you for your opinion.

So where do you go from here?? Tell the Church what to teach and reject what you don’t “like” if to doesn’t go your way. To reject Church teaching is very serious even if we think were ‘entitled’ to it. Look what happened to Lucifer and Adam and Eve when they did that! God Bless Memaw

Wow, I’ve never been compared to Lucifer before!

Now, I never said I rejected anything. I said that is our only choice, to accept or reject. That is a true statement.

 

[marymary1975]

Oh heck.

let’s just let EVERYONE have communion ALL the time, no matter what. In fact, let’s just get rid of all those (pesky) rules. God *loves *all of us, and I’m sure He doesn’t look down with disdain at anyone who wishes to partake of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of his begotten Son.

I am sure my dog would like to have communion with his creator, so why can’t he just line up on Sunday at Mass too?

---

Out of joke, it seems like in the USA a lot of people has exactly that mentality. I have found people within the catholic church in the US who have argued with me that you HAVE TO always go to communion even if you are in mortal sin (and no confession needed).o I wouldn’t be surprised if I see someone saying that the pets have to receive communion too.

 

[marimagi]

The answer to #2 and #3 is in 1 Corinthians 11:27. “Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the lord unworthy shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the lord.”

Lord, I AM NOT WORTHY that you should enter under my roof. But only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.

That WORD, is what each individual hears in their heart out of mutual love.