S
Seraphim73
Guest
That’s an interesting position I’ve never heard a Catholic express before. So St Paul’s authority was greater than that of a pope. There’s a first time for everything I suppose.
- Status
B
Brandall
Guest
Why isn’t that possible?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Because priests can’t remarry.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It may help them have empathy.
But empathy isn’t required for sound counseling. In fact, sometimes empathy hinders rational discourse.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it, esp. if they were given the authority to do so by either their education, experience (perhaps with good parents serving as examples) or ability to discern without being tendentious.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So you don’t think someone needs to have been Muslim in order to give advice to Muslim converts to Christianity about their marriage?Being married is not a arbitrary line to give advice to the married. It’s a rational and logical conclusion that most people would agree with outside of a religious discussion.
That’s quite peculiar.
And arbitrary, Seraphim. Very arbitrary.
And what about the having children part? That’s not necessary? Sharing a bond of parenthood?
Really?
That’s arbitrary, too.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Why is that?
O
One_point
Guest
the confessional alone gives a priest far more insight into marriage than any personal experience can give you. it is wisdom gained over years of dealing with hundreds of different coples and their roblems. this is soething I ve seen testified to over a priest who counselled a couple on the edge of divorce. the confessional of a dedicated priest is like a counselling university. let nobody dismiss the priest. st paul taught far more about marriage in the scriptures than any other apostle and he was celibate. I bet we cant dismiss him simply because he wasn’t talking about personal experience but from wisdom he had from faith and what he knew about marriage.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
First, Paul writes, “I not the Lord” but he may simply have been unaware that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Or do you think that this passage of scripture really isn’t inspired? So, the Pauline Privilege is from God.
Second, Jesus was speaking to the Jews about valid Jewish marriages under the law of Moses. Divorce was not permitted by him in those cases.
Paul is speaking about the marriage of unbaptized persons in his letter to the Corinthians. The Corinthians weren’t Jews (though possibly some were). If one partner is baptized, he or she becomes a new creation; even the old Jewish laws no longer applied (remember the setting aside of circumcision?). If the non-believer wished to go, go. If the non-believer wished to stay, that was okay, too.
Is there a point that I have missed?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
It’s against the canons.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Why wouldn’t I think Scripture was inspired? I also believe that Paul used his Apostolic authority to bind and loose to make the exception and I think the successors to the Apostles have that same authority. Jesus Himself doesn’t make that exception.First, Paul writes, “I not the Lord” but he may simply have been unaware that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Or do you think that this passage of scripture really isn’t inspired? So, the Pauline Privilege is from God.
Second, Jesus was speaking to the Jews about valid Jewish marriages under the law of Moses. Divorce was not permitted by him in those cases.
Paul is speaking about the marriage of unbaptized persons in his letter to the Corinthians. The Corinthians weren’t Jews (though possibly some were). If one partner is baptized, he or she becomes a new creation; even the old Jewish laws no longer applied (remember the setting aside of circumcision?). If the non-believer wished to go, go. If the non-believer wished to stay, that was okay, too.
Is there a point that I have missed?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Married priests hear confessions too.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I am curious - are there limits to the Apostolic authority to bind and loose that you are allowing Paul and other successors?
J
JimG
Guest
Well, let’s see: we have the Pauline Privilege, and the Petrine Privilege. Those are both of Apostolic origin. For some reason, the Church has not seen fit to make additional exceptions over the course of 2,000 years, most likely because she did not believe she was authorized to do so.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I can’t of a limit on the power to remit sins.
E
Ender
Guest
The church does not have the authority to decide what it thinks ought to be allowed. Her responsibility is to proclaim the moral norm, not invent it.“As teacher she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm…The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm.” (Veritatis Splendor #95)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
If church doctrines were created by the Magisterium voting on what they thought was right then your comment would be accurate, but discerning the word of God has nothing whatever to do with one’s personal experiences. God’s word is revealed, not experienced. This situation under discussion, while it may be painful, is actually rather simple.
- A second marriage constitutes adultery. We have this on rather good authority. I don’t see this one changing.
- Adultery is a grave sin. Unless we repeal the Ten Commandments this one probably isn’t changeable either.
- A person may not receive communion in a state of grave sin. Reversing this one means repudiating Paul, the Early Fathers, 2000 years of church teaching, and pretty much the whole idea of infallible teachings.
- A person may not receive absolution for a sin without contrition. Again, this is a condition on which the sacrament has been built and constitutes an infallible teaching.
- Contrition includes the intent not to repeat the sin. The sin of a second marriage is not the ceremony but sexual relations with the second spouse. If the spouses intend to continue having relations then the condition for contrition has not been met, absolution cannot be given, and communion cannot be received.
Ender
M
muffindell
Guest
In which case I am no longer a RC, I will always be in a state of grave sin. My first wife had sex with another man, I forgave her. She then went on to have sex with another man, I divorced her. She remarried a year later. I continued to receive holy communion until I remarried 6 years later. I am in a state of grave sin with no prospect of ever receiving holy communion again, unless my first wife throws herself under a train and dies. I have brought my children up has Christians (2 from first marriage, one from second). I have many doubt of Canon law, they find it easy to extract many £100’s give you hope for annulment when in reality there is none, and they know that. They just rake up the pain of the past and empty your wallet in a lost cause. Perhaps I should become a Jew, at least I would be closer to Christ than the RC church allows me to be. Maybe pagans had it right all along, loving everything nature, loving mother earth that feeds everyone no matter what.
The RC have a long path to tread; woman priests, married priests, total acceptance of all colours of race, gay and lesbian couples, no fault divorce, contraception…None of this will happen in my lifetime, because the church is stuck in the past and refuses to progress.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Because second marriages, even after the death of a spouse are sinful. This is why St. Basil penanced those who remarried after the death of a spouse as bigamists or trigamists, saying of the latter that their relationships are unlawful, but that it is better to let them be, since such a state is nevertheless better than unmitigated fornication. This and the later moechian controversy provide the canonical base for forbidding one from have a fourth spouse under any circumstances.
O
One_point
Guest
1st Corinthians 7:39-40, Remarriage after death of spouse is not a sin.
39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives;*** but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord***. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives;*** but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord***. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
B
Burdock
Guest
- Status