Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[Sy_Noe]

I keep puzzling over this statement. Mainline Christians only? Why?

And why do you reserve for yourself what you object to in the Catholic Church? You get to draw the line somewhere and say, “These people ought not receive”, but you won’t let the CC do this?

You may be unfamiliar with the practices of open Communion in various mainline denominations. And mine is a simpler faith with an easier yoke and light burden as I tried to explain. But neither I nor any of these faiths are actually the topic of this thread. In reply to another post of yours directed towards my beliefs, neither do I think couples fighting and their sex life is the same as receiving Communion and a couple’s private sex life is also not the topic. So I think best that I shall at this point just refrain from further discussion with you on this thread about me or my beliefs. Peace and may our Lord bless!

 

[PRmerger]

You may be unfamiliar with the practices of open Communion in various mainline denominations. And mine is a simpler faith with an easier yoke and light burden as I tried to explain. But neither I nor any of these faiths are actually the topic of this thread. In reply to another post of yours directed towards my beliefs, neither do I think couples fighting and their sex life is the same as receiving Communion and a couple’s private sex life is also not the topic. So I think best that I shall at this point just refrain from further discussion with you on this thread about me or my beliefs. Peace and may our Lord bless!

Well, Sy, I must say that I knew you were going to bow out of this discussion at the point where I drew attention to the fact that you are reserving for yourself what you object to in Catholicism.

Let this be made clear to all here: what has been proposed by Sy is that some ***people ***get to decide who receives communion:
yes to divorced and re-married folks
yes to those who don’t believe in the Real Presence
no to [fill in the blank with whatever frontier this person has decided is too “out there” (Westboro? Pedophiles? Folks who think the writings of St. Paul are satanic? Devil worshippers?)]

But for some reason the Catholic Church cannot do this for herself.

It’s simply astonishing that one can propose this, reserving for himself what he denies in the Catholic Church, and yet not be able to respond when this position is held up to scrutiny.

One ought to always have a reason for the hope that is in him, no?

 

[PRmerger]

In reply to another post of yours directed towards my beliefs, neither do I think couples fighting and their sex life is the same as receiving Communion and a couple’s private sex life is also not the topic.

This demonstrates a greatly impoverished understanding of the One Flesh Union.

Please note, Sy: the marital embrace, also known as the one flesh union, is an icon of the Heavenly Embrace, also known as the Eucharist, where we become One Flesh with our Beloved.

I hope you are able to see the parallel between the marital embrace and the Holy Eucharist. Both are One Flesh Unions, and am saddened that you have never encountered this before.

Further reading is suggested:

The first thing we should point out is that holy Communion is a one flesh union of persons, and marriage involves a
one flesh union of persons. The one flesh union of man and woman in marriage is meant to be a sign – limited, but
real – of the one flesh union that is offered to us in the Eucharist. This is part of the reason why Pope Benedict XVI,
drawing on the thought of John Paul II, could say:

The Eucharist, as the sacrament of charity, has a particular relationship with the love of man and woman united in
marriage. (Sacramentum Caritatis, 27)
saintpaulsa.org/marriageandeucharist.html

 

[muffindell]

This demonstrates a greatly impoverished understanding of the One Flesh Union.

Please note, Sy: the marital embrace, also known as the one flesh union, is an icon of the Heavenly Embrace, also known as the Eucharist, where we become One Flesh with our Beloved.

I hope you are able to see the parallel between the marital embrace and the Holy Eucharist. Both are One Flesh Unions, and am saddened that you have never encountered this before.

Further reading is suggested:

The first thing we should point out is that holy Communion is a one flesh union of persons, and marriage involves a
one flesh union of persons. The one flesh union of man and woman in marriage is meant to be a sign – limited, but
real – of the one flesh union that is offered to us in the Eucharist. This is part of the reason why Pope Benedict XVI,
drawing on the thought of John Paul II, could say:

The Eucharist, as the sacrament of charity, has a particular relationship with the love of man and woman united in
marriage. (Sacramentum Caritatis, 27)
saintpaulsa.org/marriageandeucharist.html

I don’t see what marriage/divorce has to do with receiving communion. At the time of the last supper there were no terms or conditions to receiving it, so why mortal man should do so is beyond me.
It’s time the church moved forward. If individuals (gay, straight, black, white, small or large) seek God in any way the church should support them totally and without condition. it does not have have any power, only that given freely by it’s people, just like any organisation.

 

[graciew]

I don’t see what marriage/divorce has to do with receiving communion. At the time of the last supper there were no terms or conditions to receiving it, so why mortal man should do so is beyond me.
It’s time the church moved forward. If individuals (gay, straight, black, white, small or large) seek God in any way the church should support them totally and without condition. it does not have have any power, only that given freely by it’s people, just like any organisation.

It is for the Pope to decide and the Synod to give advice.He is notna President , he is the Pope.
The Church is neither a democracy nor an organisation nor an NGO , but a family where you are welcome just like all of us and just like every family there are rules. The first one , unless the rule is a sin , children obey.
And we love our family with its lights and shadows

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see what marriage/divorce has to do with receiving communion. At the time of the last supper there were no terms or conditions to receiving it, so why mortal man should do so is beyond me.
It’s time the church moved forward. If individuals (gay, straight, black, white, small or large) seek God in any way the church should support them totally and without condition. it does not have have any power, only that given freely by it’s people, just like any organisation.

So many layers to this post!

Firstly, you are mixing up your metaphors here, muffindell. My comment to which you are responding is about the analogy between the one flesh union between married people (i.e. sexual intercourse) and the **One Flesh Union **between God and us (i.e. the Eucharist).

Read more here: thecatholicthing.org/notable/2012/marriage-and-the-eucharist.html

Pope John Paul II frequently spoke of the nuptial character of the Eucharist and its special relationship with the sacrament of Matrimony: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of our redemption. It is the sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride.”

And here: marriageuniqueforareason.org/2012/04/05/holy-thursday-the-eucharist-a-nuptial-sacrament/

The mutual consent that husband and wife exchange in Christ, which establishes them as a community of life and love, also has a eucharistic dimension. Indeed, in the theology of Saint Paul, conjugal love is a sacramental sign of Christ’s love for his Church, a love culminating in the Cross, the expression of his ‘marriage’ with humanity and at the same time the origin and heart of the Eucharist.

And here:
youtube.com/watch?v=RjuAPMjpUEk

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see what marriage/divorce has to do with receiving communion. At the time of the last supper there were no terms or conditions to receiving it, so why mortal man should do so is beyond me.
It’s time the church moved forward. If individuals (gay, straight, black, white, small or large) seek God in any way the church should support them totally and without condition. it does not have have any power, only that given freely by it’s people, just like any organisation.

Now, regarding marriage and divorce: the Catholic Church is only proclaiming that which Christ proclaimed–if you divorce and re-marry, it’s adultery.

And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her–Mark 10:11

And the CC only proclaims that which St. Paul proclaimed re: receiving Him with mortal sin on our souls.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.–1 Cor 11:27

It would be like a husband grievously wounding his wife, betraying her, lying to her, perhaps cheating on her (i.e. analogous to our committing mortal sin against God), but the husband still saying, “Let’s have some sex, honey!”.

You can see how perverse that would be, no? He needs to ask for her forgiveness first, before demanding to be one flesh with her.

 

[PRmerger]

At the time of the last supper there were no terms or conditions to receiving it, so why mortal man should do so is beyond me.

That’s why we have a Church–to bind and loose as Christ gave the authority to do so.

It’s time the church moved forward. If individuals (gay, straight, black, white, small or large) seek God in any way the church should support them totally and without condition.

Were you under the misapprehension that the Church does not support gay, straight, black, white, small or large?

I can assure you that the Church welcomes all to the Divine Liturgy.

it does not have have any power, only that given freely by it’s people, just like any organisation.

This is an impoverished understanding of the Church. It is not an “organization”.

It is the Body of Christ: its head is Christ, ensouled by the Holy Spirit.

Saying the Church is “just like any organisation” is like saying the Bible is “just like any book.” :whacky:

 

[JimG]

Disregarding what may be decided in individual cases for the divorced and remarried, it is clear that the Church will not have “open communion.” Even the Last Supper was by invitation only. And in the very early days of the Church, catechumens were not even admitted to the Liturgy of the Eucharist but only to the Liturgy of the Word, after which they had to leave.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t see what marriage/divorce has to do with receiving communion. At the time of the last supper there were no terms or conditions to receiving it, so why mortal man should do so is beyond me.

Maybe the question should be whether Judas should have received, not whether Christ offered it to him. It seems as if one intends to betray the provider (or the Church), he shouldn’t be accepting anything from him to begin with. One is biting the very hands that feed him by doing this.

But that’s happening already with many folks, who have admitted receiving in the state of mortal sin. Why should this be encouraged now?

 

[Phil502]

Now, regarding marriage and divorce: the Catholic Church is only proclaiming that which Christ proclaimed–if you divorce and re-marry, it’s adultery.

And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her–Mark 10:11

And the CC only proclaims that which St. Paul proclaimed re: receiving Him with mortal sin on our souls.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.–1 Cor 11:27

It would be like a husband grievously wounding his wife, betraying her, lying to her, perhaps cheating on her (i.e. analogous to our committing mortal sin against God), but the husband still saying, “Let’s have some sex, honey!”.

You can see how perverse that would be, no? He needs to ask for her forgiveness first, before demanding to be one flesh with her.

This puts a slightly different meaning to it, in some cases, don’t you think?

Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

[PRmerger]

This puts a slightly different meaning to it, in some cases, don’t you think?

Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

What meaning does it give? That Jesus was giving someone permission to commit sexual immorality so that he could validly divorce his wife?

 

[Phil502]

What meaning does it give? That Jesus was giving someone permission to commit sexual immorality so that he could validly divorce his wife?

Doesn’t that mean that a cheating spouse is an exception when one is seeking a divorce?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Doesn’t that mean that a cheating spouse is an exception when one is seeking a divorce?

I think PRmerger is asking if it means then a spouse has permission to cheat if they want to divorce.

Not necessarily would be my answer to that.

But and I realize this is not CC teaching, but why couldn’t it mean if a spouse commits sexual immorality, that’s grounds for the other spouse to seek a divorce? Jesus wasn’t opposed to making exceptions to restrictions. If he could make an exception for certain labor on the day of Sabbath rest, I don’t see why he couldn’t allow an injured spouse in a valid existing marriage to seek relief. Or exceptions to divorced and remarried Catholics being barred from Communion for that matter.

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t that mean that a cheating spouse is an exception when one is seeking a divorce?

That’s not what the text says. It says that if you divorce and remarry, except for sexual immorality, it’s not adultery.

It would seem that Jesus is saying: if you want to be able to licitly divorce your wife, all you have to do is cheat on her.

Clearly, that’s not how the CC interprets it. There is no exception for infidelity. For that would necessarily give permission for anyone who wants a divorce to just cheat on his wife.

 

[PRmerger]

But and I realize this is not CC teaching, but why couldn’t it mean if a spouse commits sexual immorality, that’s grounds for the other spouse to seek a divorce?

Because the text doesn’t say that.

That’s adding to Scripture.

There isn’t anything there about the cuckholded spouse being the one permitted to re-marry.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Because the text doesn’t say that.

That’s adding to Scripture.

There isn’t anything there about the cuckholded spouse being the one permitted to re-marry.

and Fundamentalists will say Scripture doesn’t say 1 month old babies were in households that weren’t immersed. But sometimes we use what we reason. Or we say Creation didn’t necessarily occur in just 6- 24 hr days even though Scripture says the evening and the morning were a day. Or Jesus said he would turn no one away who comes and a long list of people are added, divorced and remarried and more, who are told they are not to receive. I understand your answer comes down to that’s why we have the CC to bind and loosen. But not everyone shares your faith.

 

[PRmerger]

and Fundamentalists will say Scripture doesn’t say 1 month old babies were in households that weren’t immersed.

Bible Alone fundamentalists would have to find a Scripture verse that says that 1 month old babies were NOT in households.

But sometimes we use what we reason

Indeed.

It’s unreasonable to assume that households had no babies.

Not to mention, if I say, “Everyone in the church received a blessing from the pastor” it would be pretty peculiar if someone said, “From your statement I must assume that there were no babies who received this blessing!”

Or we say Creation didn’t necessarily occur in just 6- 24 hr days even though Scripture says the evening and the morning were a day.

Indeed. We have the Church to thank for that.

If we went by the text alone it’s more likely we’d conclude that these were 24 hour days.

Hence, a multitude of Bible alone fundamentalists do indeed conclude that these were 24 hour days.

Or Jesus said he would turn no one away who comes

Yes. This is the Catholic position. We turn away no one.

and a long list of people are added, divorced and remarried and more, who are told they are not to receive.

You have that list, too.

Unless you’re going to assert here that a card carrying Satanist would be able to receive communion in your church, were you to make yourself pope

So it’s odd that you get to make a list, but you object to the Catholic Church doing exactly what you claim for yourself.

Curious, that.

I understand your answer comes down to that’s why we have the CC to bind and loosen. But not everyone shares your faith.

That’s not where my answer comes from.

It is borne from reason.

It’s absolutely ILLOGICAL to believe that Jesus told everyone: you can’t divorce, but if you want to divorce your wife, all you need to do is cheat on her, and then I give you permission to divorce her.

Jesus giving us permission to commit adultery. As if.

And remember: there’s NOTHING in the text that says that this “adultery exception” is ONLY for the aggrieved spouse and NOT for the guilty party.

Nothing.

 

[_Abyssinia]

2 paragraphs on admission of divorced & remarried to Communion received majority vote but not 2/3. 104-74; 112-64.

twitter.com/ThomasReeseSJ/status/523528823216697346

Why if only three of the 10 groups supported Kasper proposal, did 104 Bishops vote for those paragraphs?

Cardinal Pell said only three of the synod’s 10 small groups had supported a controversial proposal by German Cardinal Walter Kasper to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion, even without an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404281.htm

 

[Phil502]

That’s not what the text says. It says that if you divorce and remarry, except for sexual immorality, it’s not adultery.

It would seem that Jesus is saying: if you want to be able to licitly divorce your wife, all you have to do is cheat on her.

Clearly, that’s not how the CC interprets it. There is no exception for infidelity. For that would necessarily give permission for anyone who wants a divorce to just cheat on his wife.

I’m thinking more like if your spouse cheats you allowed a divorce. Not the other way around. I’m thinking the “except for sexual immorality” refers to the wife in that passage. The other way would be illogical. I think there was some controversy on this point concerning the fact it is not in all the Gospels.