Actually, he did not. Here is a Q & A from the Catholic Answers site:I thought jesus said divorce was allowed in cases of adultery
Yes, it is an admitted problem, especially at English masses. Many have admitted they have received in a state of mortal sin and they still go up for communion without confession.Going to church and not going to communion is hard, I have struggled with this greatly, I know people in the similiar situations as I and some go to communion. Truthfully I went a few times, but the guilt was bad, I felt wrong, so I stopped. That being said, when I don’t go, I feel bad too, I feel like I am missing something important, incidentally very few people in my parish don’t go and it’s makes me feel like I have a neon sign over my head with a red “S” on it, probably no-one really notices or even cares but that is how I feel.
Phil, your situation is exactly the type that has moved the hearts of the Church, especially Pope Benedict.Extremely well put, I really could not add to it.
I will say though that I am in a similiar situation, my wife got involved with another man, sexually, I found a letter that she had, hidden, I had been suspicious and searched for evidence, it was all spelled out in the letter. I confronted her, she left for good and I divorced her. How could I stay married to someone who was never coming back? I certainly could not be responsible for her financially, legally or any other way after she was out of my life. There were no children.
Fast forward 6 years later, I met a good woman and we were married, that was 10 years ago. I could have gotten an annullment back then but truthfully, the devastation was so complete that I would not have wanted to deal with it then. I stayed away from the church, I never forgot God, never, I just did not worship or pray properly, not in a way that gives him thanks for all the good things I had received but did not earn.
Recently I have been coming back to mass regularly and attempting to develop a relationship with God that was long overdue and woefully lacking. I went to confession and told the priest about my situation, he replied he could not finish my confession and that I should make an appointment to see him, then he shut the slider, I understand but it was not what I expected.
I looked at the annullment questions online from my Diocese, a lot of that stuff pertaining to what happened 20 years ago, I don’t think I could honestly remember enough to answer, I really think I would be winging it. Look at the questions sometime and you will see what I mean. Get 3 witnesses, no problem, I have the same friends who stood up at my wedding back then, yes they remember it all and told me they are behind me in any way that I need them for this.
Going to church and not going to communion is hard, I have struggled with this greatly, I know people in the similiar situations as I and some go to communion. Truthfully I went a few times, but the guilt was bad, I felt wrong, so I stopped. That being said, when I don’t go, I feel bad too, I feel like I am missing something important, incidentally very few people in my parish don’t go and it’s makes me feel like I have a neon sign over my head with a red “S” on it, probably no-one really notices or even cares but that is how I feel.
I don’t think I did anything wrong in that I would not be granted an annullment, I certainly would never have left my first wife, I still have dreams about her, less now than in the past, reliving the sadness and they always make me feel disheartened when I wake up. I’m sure I have to take some blame for what happened to end my first marriage, I am not completely blameless but I never did anything intentially to ruin it.
Thats why I think the annullment process should be made easier. I don’t see how a tribunal can really decide what happened 20 years ago when I can hardly remember a lot of specifics myself. Saying that I am committing adultery now is hardly the same as cheating on a current spouse, I really don’t feel that it’s in the same ballpark. Expecting people to live alone for the rest of their lives is not, I don’t think what God would really want either, given certain circumstances.
God Bless!!
The problem with the things you have listed, as laudable as they are, is that not one of them confers sacramental grace. Not even regular confession, because regular confession and absolution is not possible for the divorced and remarried unless they resolve to live in complete continence. Read the testimonial of Phil502. Divorce and remarriage, in the current circumstances, cuts you off from the sacramental life of the Church and thus from sacramental grace.I personally agree that the synod is needed.
However, the Eucharist isn’t the only food. We can “feed” and minister the following to people who cannot receive the Eucharist.
The altar has plenty to offer. But instead, they insist on the one thing that might cause them more harm. Typically, the ones who insist on receiving the Eucharist are not even interested in any of the things I listed.
- Attending Mass EVERY Sunday
- Attending Mass for every Holy Day of Obligation
- Regular Confession
- Spiritual Direction
- Adult Catechesis
- Daily or Weekly Rosary
- Daily Prayer
- Daily Mass
- Weekly or Daily Devotions to the Saints or Blessed Mother
- Catholic Bible Study
- Pray the LOTH
- Catholic Retreats
- Weekly or daily Adoration
- Receive Blessings from a priest or deacon
- Have our homes blessed by a priest
- Watch ETWN
- Listen to Catholic Answers
- Purchase books from faithful Catholic authors and publishers
- Receive help from faithful Catholic therapists, doctors and/or counselors depending on issues
- etc…
NOTE: I used to be someone who was not allowed to receive communion due to an irregular marriage. When people where saying to be me “oh I can’t believe the church is punishing you like that,” my reply was “no, they are saving my soul!” I accepted the other “food” at the table and eventually brought myself back into good standings. Why? Because I was sincere in my desire to return to communion with the Church. I accept my Cross and can now move forward.
If people don’t believe in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist and do not believe that Jews literally died when opening the Arc of the Covenant, if not in a state of Grace; then they will never understand the teaching of refraining from Communion when not in a state of Grace.
Well said.The problem with the things you have listed, as laudable as they are, is that not one of them confers sacramental grace. Not even regular confession, because regular confession and absolution is not possible for the divorced and remarried unless they resolve to live in complete continence. Read the testimonial of Phil502. Divorce and remarriage, in the current circumstances, cuts you off from the sacramental life of the Church and thus from sacramental grace.
Many of the divorced and remarried were thrust into the divorce part through no fault of their own, and then perhaps proceeded to remarry while out of the Church for whatever reason. Which is why we need to rethink this and why the Synod is, in fact, rethinking this.
Sacramental grace is, IMOH, an essential element to true ongoing conversion of the heart.
It really comes down to the question of whether a valid marriage bond can be broken by man or not. The Church has always taken Jesus’ words to mean that a bond once validly entered into and consummated, cannot be broken, and persists for life.Well I think things are not that clear cut. I still feel that the church needs to take each case. Marriages break down for many reasons abuse, adultery, Annulment seems a bit of a farce to me.
I don’t want to sound heartless, but what’s there to rethink? Wasn’t adultery and scandal for whatever reason prevalent during Christ’s life on earth? And, if you’re going to slap on the eating part again, let’s not forget Christ asking an unrepentant Judas to leave.Many of the divorced and remarried were thrust into the divorce part through no fault of their own, and then perhaps proceeded to remarry while out of the Church for whatever reason. Which is why we need to rethink this and why the Synod is, in fact, rethinking this.
phil, the Old Law was received by the people in circumstance of fear of God and ‘fear’ of sin and division among people, so we can’t really relate receiving Communion with encountering the Arc. By virtue of Jesus life, death and resurrection and our adoption as one family through Christ… we relate differently in our encounter with the Lord. We experience sorrow at sin and sorrow at the division among people. Before your situation was regularised, those people that expressed sorrow for your situation were in fact expressing a natural Christian regard for a brother (and sister). Now remember, this synod or ‘movement’ is not seeking to do away with the annulment process… it is seeking to open it out to deeper examination.NOTE: I used to be someone who was not allowed to receive communion due to an irregular marriage. When people where saying to be me “oh I can’t believe the church is punishing you like that,” my reply was “no, they are saving my soul!” I accepted the other “food” at the table and eventually brought myself back into good standings. Why? Because I was sincere in my desire to return to communion with the Church. I accept my Cross and can now move forward.
If people don’t believe in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist and do not believe that Jews literally died when opening the Arc of the Covenant, if not in a state of Grace; then they will never understand the teaching of refraining from Communion when not in a state of Grace.
Yes but there is no added grace when one receives in a state of mortal sin or scandalous state. It is IMHO that the lifting of excommunication tied with divorce (and in some cases, separation, I believe) was pastoral enough.Sacramental grace is, IMOH, an essential element to true ongoing conversion of the heart.
The problem with this argument is that the Septuagint (greek translation of the OT, quoted more than 300 times in the NT) uses porneia for adultery many, many times. For instance, it is used in Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel chapter 16 and 23 and throughout the book of Hosea. In these instances, Israel is compared to a wife who commits adultery (moicheia) by committing acts of whoredom (porneia). So she broke her marital covenant by her porneia… It is therefore likely that Matthew is adding an exception, although it is doubtful if it actually comes from the historical Jesus himself. The oldest references to Jesus’ teaching are found in 1Cor7 and Mark. None of them mention this exception to the rule (although Paul makes his own exception, on his own authority).Actually, he did not. Here is a Q & A from the Catholic Answers site:
:
QUESTION
In Matthew 19:3-9 when the Pharisees are questioning Jesus about divorce, Jesus seems to make an exception in the case of adultery. Why, then, doesn’t the Catholic Church follow what Jesus says in the Bible and allow divorce in such circumstances?
ANSWER
Let us recall first of all that Matthew’s audience was mainly Jews, and only Matthew’s Gospel has this exception clause.
The word “adultery” is not what Jesus said, although many Bible translations use this word. If Jesus intended to say adultery, he would have used the word moicheia, meaning “adultery,” but instead he used the word porneia, meaning illicit or invalid.
His audience, the Jews, knew exactly what Jesus meant. Leviticus 18:6-16 list marriages that are illegal for Jews because they are between certain degrees of consanguinity or were with a Gentile, which was forbidden. The Jews knew this, and this is why Matthew’s Gospel includes this exception. The Catholic Church does follow what Jesus says, when his words are properly translated.
Source: catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church
Is the sin, in all circumstances, always mortal?Yes but there is no added grace when one receives in a state of mortal sin or scandalous state. It is IMHO that the lifting of excommunication tied with divorce (and in some cases, separation, I believe) was pastoral enough.
A bishop or priest may ask someone to refrain from receiving, even if he doesn’t know for sure whether it’s mortal or not. Primarily because of scandal. In fact I know of one U.S. Catholic Senator who has agreed not to receive and so far he’s okay with it. AFAIK he still attends church and I’ll bet no one has thought of him any less.Is the sin, in all circumstances, always mortal?
A few interesting texts:This discussion could go on forever, it definitely needs changing, the church should listen to people and not be so draconian. I still believe that divorce in cases of adultery should be allowed, I thinkvjesus would as well, it says adultery vin the bible, and please dont say that was a mistranslation
Those catholics who said no to good old king henry must feel so stupid right now for standing up for nothingThis discussion could go on forever, it definitely needs changing, the church should listen to people and not be so draconian. I still believe that divorce in cases of adultery should be allowed, I thinkvjesus would as well, it says adultery vin the bible, and please dont say that was a mistranslation
“First, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High; second, she has commited an offence against her husband; and third, she has has commited adultery [moicheia] through **harlotry [porneia] **and brought forth children by another man.” Sirach 23:23