Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[One_point]

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.

“We” here is Christians. the question is rhetorical, who are we to purport to correct Jesus after he corrected Moses? Saying less merciful than Moses is basically saying saying Jesus was being less merciful than Moses. It ws Moses’ position that needed to be corrected. The church cannot purport to correct Jesus. Saying we cant remain in 1st century is saying we cant remain on Jesu’ words. I knew the church can make clarifications as we go on, but I never knew the church can decide to change something the church has clearly taught definitively for 2,000 years in obedience to Jesus’ teachings.

the only this can change is if we decide the second marriage is not adulterous, which we are violating jesus words and infallible church teaching. the other is to say it possible to approach communion without giving up persistent sin. I don’t see how the church can change either of those.

 

[anthonymarie]

To read the full article see: cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/09/two-more-cardinals-back-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried/

From the article:

“She cannot abandon that union or those children,” he said. “In these cases, we have to do something".

Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio”

So ironic, justifying disunity in the name of unity.

 

[pnewton]

“We” here is Christians. the question is rhetorical, who are we to purport to correct Jesus after he corrected Moses? .

Well, it is a good thing no one said this!

Bring out the straw.

the only this can change is if we decide the second marriage is not adulterous

Or, that it is not really a second marriage, as in helping the annulment process run more smoothly. Even the presumption of validity of the first marriage is a matter of canon law, a discipline. Or the level on which validity is decided. Or how a person who is in this second marriage is ministered to. Note, if we do not want to correct Jesus, he said such a person commits adultery, not is in a continuous state of adultery, as per current Canon Law.

 

[One_point]

Well, it is a good thing no one said this!

Bring out the straw.

You said this

"Jesus gave a reason why the Law of Moses allowed for a writ of divorce. People still sin today. "

What did you mean?

You also said that we should not stay in the 1st century and implied that our stance today is less merciful than Moses" stance (which you cut out from that quote).

Our stance is Jesus’ stance. If it is less merciful, then is Jesus less merciful? That is a genuine question from your own quotes, not a “straw”. In what way is our stance today different from Jesus or lacking mercy?

 

[dans0622]

… Even the presumption of validity of the first marriage is a matter of canon law, a discipline. … Note, if we do not want to correct Jesus, he said such a person commits adultery, not is in a continuous state of adultery, as per current Canon Law.

Hello,

Yes, the first point is in canon law but that doesn’t mean it can be easily discarded. In fact, I don’t know how any society could *not *presume a properly contracted marriage is valid.

The second point is not in canon law, explicitly. Instead, it’s in the Catechism, #2384. So, you’ll have to chastise the Catechism for “correcting Jesus,” not Canon Law.

Dan

 

[One_point]

Or, that it is not really a second marriage, as in helping the annulment process run more smoothly. Even the presumption of validity of the first marriage is a matter of canon law, a discipline. Or the level on which validity is decided. Or how a person who is in this second marriage is ministered to.

I understand helping the annulment run smoothly. I understand investigating more deeply the validity of the first marriage especially in a culture where Christian morals have disappeared and many people are likely not to understand marriage commitment whn getting married. I understand all that about stat of the first marriage but the rest I honestly don’t understand.

Note, if we do not want to correct Jesus, he said such a person commits adultery, not is in a continuous state of adultery, as per current Canon Law.

So you commit adultery when you get married but then don’t commit adultery when you STAY married? How can it be adultery when you get married but not when you stay? Jesus said the two shall be one flesh and what God has puttogether let no man separate. that the basis for calling the second marriage adulterous so the only way your solution works is if the first marriage stops being true that is NOT indissoluble. if we say that we are still correcting Jesus.

 

[marymary1975]

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.

Whatever happens, I hope you continue to attend Mass and don’t despair because that’s another sin. As is presumption, the other extreme.

What Phil mentions accentuates a question in my head. Why do people feel bad? I have trouble understanding why there is a guilty feeling over doing something I am supposed to do? is it bad cathequesis in the US? Is it lack of knowledge? Is that CCD is not teaching things properly? Why this phenomenon in the US. Again is just that I am heavily puzzled over this situation in the US.

 

[pnewton]

You said this

"Jesus gave a reason why the Law of Moses allowed for a writ of divorce. People still sin today. "

What did you mean?

You also said that we should not stay in the 1st century and implied that our stance today is less merciful than Moses" stance (which you cut out from that quote).

Our stance is Jesus’ stance.

Jesus did not allow for annulments. That came later. Yet our stance is that of Jesus because the principles remain, as does His authority. If the synod changes the approach to the remarried, our stance will still be that of Jesus for the same reason. Bringing Jesus into this is simply not useful. No one is suggesting that we replace anything Jesus did. Yet we still have the problem with people of hard hearts. Therefore, the principle of how best to reach people who have committed sin remain.

So you commit adultery when you get married but then don’t commit adultery when you STAY married? How can it be adultery when you get married but not when you stay?

It could be viewed as an act, like pretty much every other sin. Or not. The point is, Jesus’ words, in there literal meaning refer to adultery as if it were an act, not a state.

 

[pnewton]

Hello,

Yes, the first point is in canon law but that doesn’t mean it can be easily discarded. In fact, I don’t know how any society could *not *presume a properly contracted marriage is valid.

O totally agree. How can anything be changed an maintain orthodox? To answer this, the synod must first decide what orthodoxy is, what is immutable and what is changeable. Even then, that which can be changed may have not changed for very good reasons. The past is a strong argument for continuation. I do not think anyone views any part of this synod as easy. As to your second point, we already have the Petrine privilege and the Pauline privilege, two cases where validity is not assumable.

The second point is not in canon law, explicitly. Instead, it’s in the Catechism, #2384. So, you’ll have to chastise the Catechism for “correcting Jesus,” not Canon Law.

The CCC does not correct Jesus. It defines Church practice and teaching. It does not contradict Jesus at all, but expands what he said. Yet the point remains, it is the Catholic Church that takes this position from her authority, not from the actual words of Jesus.

 

[Sy_Noe]

And this is a great apologia you have provided for why we need a Church.

All it takes is about 3 seconds. I’m pretty sure there’s 3 seconds of time unaccounted for in the gospels.

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.

Right but among those conditions are as CCC says there must be a grave reason. I have to be in danger of death (Whatever that means, since all of us have that danger, I don’t even know the purpose of making that a condition). And it would have had to be impossible to go to the confessional beforehand. And I would have to go to confession as soon as possible after receiving. No wonder when awhile ago I was reading another thread, Catholics were saying making an act of perfect contrition was very difficult to actually obtain.

Anyway we could go back and forth (which I’m not interested in doing) maybe forever til our Lord comes again and might not agree on this. If I am wrong, I will have to trust in His infinite understanding of me and in His mercy. But of the many things in the Bible that may not be easy for me to understand, whether or not less should be excluded, told they can not receive Jesus, and turned away, is just not one for me. So if the Holy Father and bishops end up backing Communion for more people, such as divorced and remarried, I believe that can only be a good change.

As Pope Francis has said, the Eucharist is medicine, not a prize for the perfect.

 

[One_point]

Jesus did not allow for annulments. That came later. Yet our stance is that of Jesus because the principles remain, as does His authority. If the synod changes the approach to the remarried, our stance will still be that of Jesus for the same reason. Bringing Jesus into this is simply not useful. No one is suggesting that we replace anything Jesus did. Yet we still have the problem with people of hard hearts. Therefore, the principle of how best to reach people who have committed sin remain.
It could be viewed as an act, like pretty much every other sin. Or not. The point is, Jesus’ words, in there literal meaning refer to adultery as if it were an act, not a state./

I disagree. Jesus spoke about marriage indissolubility as the context for that “adultery” so to read that passage that way requires serious intellectual summersaults. the only way it can be true is to deny that first context (indissolubility) or to redefine the meaning of adultery to exclude acts by people who are already married to other people!

the only other way is to say a person can repent of committing a sin yesterday with their “husband” and then go to communion, but that is subject to normal rules of “do you really intend not to commit that sin again?” if we are talking about permitting the second marriage to continue normally and then we say its no longer adultery because the act of adultery was getting married, we are inventing our own doctrine that has nothing to do with what Jesus said.

marriage is defined as insoluble
adultery is defined in the bible as a married person having sex with non spouse
jesus says 2nd marriage is Adultery.

this can only mean that the 2nd marriage is no different than a married man having a mistress on the side. nothing can transform that affair with the mistress into anything less than adultery apart from a valid marriage happening after annulment or death of first wife.

 

[pnewton]

I disagree.

You disagree with what I said about the literal meaning of the word? You think moichatai has a different meaning than “commit adultery”?

So if a man commits adultery with a woman he is not married to, it establishes a state of adultery that cannot be absolved in confession? The same word is use in this way.

I do not know to what extent change can occur. However, we do have this synod. The Holy Father wants the question explored. Some bishops think greater change is possible than other bishops. At the very least, I think the evidence is out there for the possibility of change, meaning that not all the Church practices with regard to marriage and divorce is based on doctrine which is immutable.

 

[JohnPaul]

Heaven forbid we ask couples to govern their passions.

 

[dans0622]

… As to your second point, we already have the Petrine privilege and the Pauline privilege, two cases where validity is not assumable.
…

Hello,

To have recourse to either Privilege demands a valid marriage. If it’s not valid, it can’t be dissolved.

Dan

 

[Eternal_One]

You disagree with what I said about the literal meaning of the word? You think moichatai has a different meaning than “commit adultery”?

So if a man commits adultery with a woman he is not married to, it establishes a state of adultery that cannot be absolved in confession? The same word is use in this way.

Jesus said the person “commits adultery”, present tense. An ongoing sin. He did not say the person would have “committed adultery” in the past tense, as a single act.

 

[dans0622]

Jesus said the person “commits adultery”, present tense. An ongoing sin. He did not say the person would have “committed adultery” in the past tense, as a single act.

Hello,

It is interesting that He said the one “who marries another commits adultery.” So, that act of marriage is the act of adultery He is identifying. I can see why the Catechism (for example) concludes that as long as one remains in that “state” of a “second marriage” there is an ongoing state of adultery.

Dan

 

[JimG]

Hello,

It is interesting that He said the one “who marries another commits adultery.” So, that act of marriage is the act of adultery He is identifying. I can see why the Catechism (for example) concludes that as long as one remains in that “state” of a “second marriage” there is an ongoing state of adultery.

Dan

Adultery is having sexual relations with someone who is not one’s spouse. Jesus says that he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. What he seems to be saying is that since divorce is prohibited, it has no effect: so the man remains married to the first wife. So any sexual relations with the second spouse constitute adultery.

Those who heard him did not like this teaching any more than does the modern world. He specifically revokes the Mosaic allowance for divorce.

 

[PRmerger]

Right but among those conditions are as CCC says there must be a grave reason. I have to be in danger of death (Whatever that means, since all of us have that danger, I don’t even know the purpose of making that a condition). And it would have had to be impossible to go to the confessional beforehand. And I would have to go to confession as soon as possible after receiving. No wonder when awhile ago I was reading another thread, Catholics were saying making an act of perfect contrition was very difficult to actually obtain.

Yep.

So to bring it back to our discourse re: Judas–you can’t know whether he had perfect contrition for his sinful desires.

Thus, one cannot conclude, "Since Christ gave communion to Judas that means that everyone can have at it! Knock yourselves out, folks! We all get to be One Flesh with him! And, in fact, when you and your wife have had a knock-down, drag-out fight, you still get to tell your wife, ‘Hey! I deserve my marital rights even if you can’t stand me right now. Remember, Jesus gave Judas communion when Judas was filled with hatred for Him! You only kind of can’t stand to look at me right now, so…let’s get it on, honey!’ "

So if the Holy Father and bishops end up backing Communion for more people, such as divorced and remarried, I believe that can only be a good change.

Would that make you come back to the Church, then?

As Pope Francis has said, the Eucharist is medicine, not a prize for the perfect.

Amen!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yep.

So to bring it back to our discourse re: Judas–you can’t know whether he had perfect contrition for his sinful desires.

Thus, one cannot conclude, "Since Christ gave communion to Judas that means that everyone can have at it! Knock yourselves out, folks! We all get to be One Flesh with him! And, in fact, when you and your wife have had a knock-down, drag-out fight, you still get to tell your wife, ‘Hey! I deserve my marital rights even if you can’t stand me right now. Remember, Jesus gave Judas communion when Judas was filled with hatred for Him! You only kind of can’t stand to look at me right now, so…let’s get it on, honey!’ "

Would that make you come back to the Church, then?

Amen!

PRMerger, what I know according to what Matthew wrote in 27:4 of his gospel and if I believe it and take it literally, is Judas went back and told the chief priests and elders that he had sinned and they said that meant nothing to them.

newadvent.org/bible/mat027.htm

And then he committed suicide. We have that account but no account of it having been impossible for him to go to confession before or that he went to confession as soon as possible after he shared a table with Jesus. So with what I can truly know and with what Jesus tells me in Jn 6 about how He would never turn anyone away who feels called to Him, I’m just going to have to still side more on inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness and take my chances when I meet my maker.

To answer your last question. I was baptized Catholic and I’ve attended Mass even this yr several times. So knowing how much you seem to pride yourself on being such a fine apologist, I know you must surely know about OCAC. So I’m just going to assume by “back to”, what you meant to say was back to the practice?

And with such an assumption in my mind, to answer, I’m not sure just opening Communion to this one group alone would, no. But it sure would be a welcomed first start!

Peace.

 

[ProVobis]

And with such an assumption in my mind, to answer, I’m not sure just opening Communion to this one group alone would, no. But it sure would be a welcomed first start!

Perhaps there are other solutions, like confession or spiritual direction? I for one wouldn’t encourage scandalous behavior by “allowing” what’s blatantly sacrilegious.