Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to Luke 22:15-23, you’re right. John 13 seems to. Jesus foretells of the betrayal in Matthew 26:21-25 before Matthew 26:26-29. Similarly in Mark 14:18-21.
In both Matthew and Mark, Judas has already decided to betray Jesus. Mark 14:10-11, Matthew 26:16. Jesus gave him communion. My point is that if Jesus himself didn’t deny the Eucharist to someone who had already decided to betray him, then on what basis could a priest deny someone communion today?
 
… then on what basis could a priest deny someone communion today?
-]Possible/-] probable scandal. Bishops have already asked certain politicians to refrain for that reason.
“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Matt 18:6
Mark 9:42
 
-]Possible/-] probable scandal. Bishops have already asked certain politicians to refrain for that reason.

Matt 18:6
Mark 9:42
Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance, so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
 
If Jesus wished to teach that divorce was possible, why did he tell the disciples that he who divorces his wife and marries commits adultery?

If the divorce ended the marriage, there would be no adultery in the remarriage. Are we to say that divorce, either civil or religious or personal, can end a marriage? It seems a direct violation of his words.
 
Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance, so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
Of course you should teach love and tolerance but bad example is bad example. Buying and selling porn is bad example; would teaching love and tolerance to others lessen the gravity of the scandalous state? How about for a politician advocating abortion?

Unfortunately, moral theology isn’t taught much in schools. It was only when I took ethics in grad school business that I received any significant training in it. So not extensive but I can see when some of my actions can lead others to sin.
 
Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance, so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
Even God does not tolerate unrepentant sinners in Heaven. He threw a man out of a wedding feast who rejected the free wedding garment, after all.

I’m not saying we should judge sinners to be repentant or unrepentant. Refusing communion, like excommunication, is partially judgmental, but it is mainly medicinal. And sometimes you’ve got to take a stand - the Church has to stand up for the truth when politicians walk all over it, and the politicians have to take a stand for what they really believe. Is the Catholic Church the “way, truth and life”, or is it just a nice club to belong to?

They’ve got to understand what they’re doing. We can’t “love and tolerate” people into Hell. God has warned us not to do that. We’ve got to warn them when they are in danger. If we don’t, our butts are also on the line. And I do not want to be responsible for the damnation of millions.
 
Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance, so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
They do. Sometimes it is the most loving thing they can do, protecting others and the individual who could be damning themselves.
 
In both Matthew and Mark, Judas has already decided to betray Jesus. Mark 14:10-11, Matthew 26:16. Jesus gave him communion. My point is that if Jesus himself didn’t deny the Eucharist to someone who had already decided to betray him, then on what basis could a priest deny someone communion today?
You don’t know if Judas repented of this desire and asked for forgiveness prior to receiving Communion.
 
Then perhaps the priest should teach people love and tolerance,
Love? Certainly.

Tolerance–of course, with some caveats. We wouldn’t tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church preaching their hatred. So “tolerance” of vile ideology is a really bad idea.
so they won’t be scandalized if someone they disagree with takes communion.
It’s not “disagreement” with a bishop’s personal tastes. It’s someone presenting herself for Communion who’s in disagreement with Christ Himself.
 
You don’t know if Judas repented of this desire and asked for forgiveness prior to receiving Communion.
Jesus would have known and yet he said at the Supper, “Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table”.
 
Jesus would have known and yet he said at the Supper, “Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table”.
Annddd…yet…

…Judas could have repented between then and the moment Jesus gave him communion.

You just don’t know, do you?

It’s hard to see Judas’ culpability and mortal sin from 2000 years’ vision.

Heck, even with the eyes of his fellow apostles, it would have been beyond their pay scale to say, “Judas, our brother, has mortal sin on his soul. So that gives us permission to give anyone communion since Jesus gave it to Judas!”
 
Annddd…yet…

…Judas could have repented between then and the moment Jesus gave him communion.

You just don’t know, do you?

It’s hard to see Judas’ culpability and mortal sin from 2000 years’ vision.

Heck, even with the eyes of his fellow apostles, it would have been beyond their pay scale to say, “Judas, our brother, has mortal sin on his soul. So that gives us permission to give anyone communion since Jesus gave it to Judas!”
We don’t know a lot of things without faith. How do Catholics confess mortal sin? The Gospel accounts don’t show us that Judas confessed before receiving. They do however show Jesus giving him Communion. Actually it appears he would have had little time to make a confession before receiving. They were already at the table and the bread and chalice were distributed in the verses of Luke 22 prior to Jesus saying the hand of the betrayer was with Jesus at the table. Now if you want to say Judas may have heard God saying the word moments before and simply confessed in his heart to become worthy, by all means you’ll get no argument from me. But the problem with that is Catholics don’t believe someone with mortal sin can simply hear the word in the pew moments before the Eucharist and become healed and worthy to receive. Otherwise so I could be one of these divorced and remarried Catholics (I’m not) or I could miss Mass one wk. Go the next and without having gone to confession, when I pray just moments before Communion, Lord I am not worthy… but only say the word and my soul shall be healed, I could receive if I heard His call. Doesn’t work that way. But then that’s one reason why you’re a practicing Catholic and I’m not.
 
We don’t know a lot of things without faith.
And this is a great apologia you have provided for why we need a Church. 👍
Actually it appears he would have had little time to make a confession before receiving.
All it takes is about 3 seconds. I’m pretty sure there’s 3 seconds of time unaccounted for in the gospels.
They were already at the table and the bread and chalice were distributed in the verses of Luke 22 prior to Jesus saying the hand of the betrayer was with Jesus at the table. Now if you want to say Judas may have heard God saying the word moments before and simply confessed in his heart to become worthy, by all means you’ll get no argument from me. But the problem with that is Catholics don’t believe someone with mortal sin can simply hear the word in the pew moments before the Eucharist and become healed and worthy to receive.
sigh

Remember your adamantine insistence that you know the faith you left?
And your deep annoyance at my contention that you lack a firm foundation in Catholicism?

Well…let me offer another example of why I am right:

You are absolutely wrong in the section I have bolded above.

Catholics who have mortal sin **may indeed receive communion **if they “simply hear the word in the pew moments before the Eucharist and become healed and worthy to receive”, given certain conditions.

“Since perfect contrition obtains the forgiveness of grave sins, one who makes an act of perfect contrition may receive the Eucharist under certain conditions.”
catholic.com/quickquestions/can-someone-who-has-committed-a-mortal-sin-receive-communion-if-he-makes-a-perfect-ac

And from our Catechism:

When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible–CCC 1452 scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm

Oh, dear Sy! Would that you had actually been well catechized in the faith you left! We would have had another great apologist for the Catholic faith in you here on the CAFs!

Rather than leaving His Body for a church which matches your own palates and tastes, we would have had another staunch defender of His Teachings, no matter how they disagreed with our own personal ideologies and preferences.
 
While I understand God is a God of compassion, I also think Jesus prohibits divorce for a reason. Also divorce was rampant in Roman society. IMO divorce is completely destroying society. So for us to say it is okay. Maybe remarriage should be allowed in cases of adultery, physical abuse. Abandonment. But for the most part relaxing things I feel would encourage.
 
While I understand God is a God of compassion, I also think Jesus prohibits divorce for a reason. Also divorce was rampant in Roman society. IMO divorce is completely destroying society. So for us to say it is okay. Maybe remarriage should be allowed in cases of adultery, physical abuse. Abandonment. But for the most part relaxing things I feel would encourage.
Jesus gave a reason why the Law of Moses allowed for a writ of divorce. People still sin today.
 
Jesus gave a reason why the Law of Moses allowed for a writ of divorce. People still sin today.
Didn’t he say because their hearts were hard, but it wasn’t the way it was intended?

Marriage is all or nothing. Choose wisely.
 
So we supposed to override him and go back to Moses’ system? Who are we?:confused:
I do not know who you are, and I do not give personal information, but no, we do not go back to Mosaic Law, nor continue in the First Century. The principles remain though, which is exactly why we need active authority, an apostolic Church.

Should the Church be less merciful than the Mosaic Law, having its foundation in Him whose name is Mercy? We cannot abandon either orthodoxy or our pastoral mission to all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top