Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[Burdock]

I agree with muffindell, thats why I have decided to go back to my previous church, it would be wrong for me to stay

 

[PRmerger]

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.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s against the canons.

You have just presented a tautology, which is not helpful at all. “It’s against the canons for a priest to re-marry because priests can’t re-marry.”

What’s the apologia for this, as you understand it?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Well, muffindell, I respectfully say that you are creating a god in your own image, then. If your god never disagrees with you, never proclaims moral laws that are distasteful to your own palates, never demands that you change your moral compass…

then you have created a god after the Almighty Self, rather than the Almighty Himself.

 

[PRmerger]

Because second marriages, even after the death of a spouse are sinful.

Why is that?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with muffindell, thats why I have decided to go back to my previous church, it would be wrong for me to stay

If your god never disagrees with you, then you may be worshipping an idealized version of yourself.–Pastor Tim Keller

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If one can indeed divorce because of adultery. Then what of those marriages where there is adultery but then forgiveness. What we are saying is that they don’t have “real” marriages or the same marriages as those who have not committed adultery because they “could” divorce. That God says, “well, that is so bad that their marriage is dissoluble” But what if the couple chooses to stay together? Does the fact that they COULD have divorced lessen their marriage compared to someone who has not committed adultery? I think it does.

 

[PRmerger]

This and the later moechian controversy provide the canonical base for forbidding one from have a fourth spouse under any circumstances.

Wait….what?

4th marriages? Those are absolutely forbidden but 2nd and 3rd are not according to Orthodoxy?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Wait….what?

4th marriages? Those are absolutely forbidden but 2nd and 3rd are not according to Orthodoxy?

http://media.tumblr.com/7127396a53b05b1bd47d4bdb28a5b8b5/tumblr_inline_my3mdeJJn71r79k32.gif

I know. Such an arbitrary line to draw.

 

[Ender]

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.

You clearly have a painful history, but none of this addresses the question I raised. Which church doctrine needs to change in order for the divorced and remarried to properly receive communion?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

You clearly have a painful history, but none of this addresses the question I raised. Which church doctrine needs to change in order for the divorced and remarried to properly receive communion?

Ender

Pope Benedict has been contemplating the issue for many years and this article summarises the progression of his thoughts from his 1998 essay on the subject…

Benedict XVI begins with a consideration that seems to close any sort of loophole:

“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.” A norm, the indissolubility of marriage, that is of “divine law” and “over which the Church has no discretionary authority.”

But immediately afterward, he adds:

“However, the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus’ teaching.”

And, he writes, the ecclesiastical tribunals that should ascertain whether or not a marriage is valid do not always function well. Sometimes the processes “last an excessive amount of time.” In some cases "they conclude with questionable decisions."In still others “mistakes occur.”

In these cases, therefore – the pope recognizes –, “it seems that the application of ‘epikeia’ in the internal forum is not automatically excluded,” meaning a decision of conscience:

“Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions”.

In the fourth part of the essay, Benedict XVI indicates precisely a new field to be explored, regarding the factors that render a marriage null:

The pope strictly excludes the possibility that a marriage could cease to be valid simply because “the personal bond of love between the spouses no longer exists.”

But he continues:

“Further study is required, however, concerning the question of whether non-believing Christians – baptized persons who never did or who no longer believe in God – can truly enter into a sacramental marriage. In other words, it needs to be clarified whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ‘ipso facto’ a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Code states that only a ‘valid’ marriage between baptized persons is at the same time a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055, § 2). Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the ‘absence of faith’ would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.”

In a footnote added to the bottom of the essay is the statement to the priests of Aosta in which the pope revisited and developed this reasoning:

“Those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various bishops’ conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further.”

In the fifth and final part of the essay, finally, Pope Benedict again cautions against “watering down” in the name of mercy that revealed truth which is the indissolubility of marriage.

And he concludes:

“Assuredly, the word of truth can be painful and uncomfortable. But it is the way to holiness, to peace, and to inner freedom. A pastoral approach which truly wants to help the people concerned must always be grounded in the truth. In the end, only the truth can be pastoral. ‘Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ (Jn. 8:32).”

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350098?eng=y

 

[One_point]

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.

I don’t understand why you have race there. Does the church have a problem with ANY race on this planet? Are you really sure you are talking about the Catholic Church?

 

[One_point]

Pope Benedict has been contemplating the issue for many years and this article summarises the progression of his thoughts from his 1998 essay on the subject…

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350098?eng=y

The Pope never questions church teaching anywhere. His question is on invalidity, and we know invalidity is possible for many reason and it is not out of question to count lack of faith as a possible ground for invalidity.

 

[LongingSoul]

The Pope never questions church teaching anywhere. His question is on invalidity, and we know invalidity is possible for many reason and it is not out of question to count lack of faith as a possible ground for invalidity.

Annulment has been around since the beginning. Why would Pope Benedict bother raising the issue of invalidity at the turn of the 21st century?

This is what the synod is addressing now. There are people around the world faithfully following Catholic teaching some having been denied annulments of first marriage according to the process, who have no hope of ever having Communion until one spouse dies. The spouse that dies first is the real loser in that case. If Popes care about this conundrum… who are we to tell them they’ve crossed the line in even bringing it to a synod discussion?

 

[Seraphim73]

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.

Which of these elements are you suggesting needs to be changed to allow the divorced and remarried to receive communion?

Ender

Then St Paul advocated people entering into grave sin.

What you do is repent of the sin just like any other and then you are readmitted to Communion. Simple.

 

[Seraphim73]

You have just presented a tautology, which is not helpful at all. “It’s against the canons for a priest to re-marry because priests can’t re-marry.”

What’s the apologia for this, as you understand it?

“Since our pious and Christian Emperor has addressed this holy and ecumenical council, in order that it might provide for the purity of those who are in the list of the clergy, and who transmit divine things to others, and that they may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of the great God, who is both Offering and High Priest, a sacrifice apprehended by the intelligence: and that it might cleanse away the pollutions wherewith these have been branded by unlawful marriages: now whereas they of the most holy Roman Church purpose to keep the rule of exact perfection, but those who are under the throne of this heaven-protected and royal city keep that of kindness and consideration, so blending both together as our fathers have done, and as the love of God requires, that neither gentleness fall into licence, nor severity into harshness; especially as the fault of ignorance has reached no small number of men, we decree, that those who are involved in a second marriage, and have been slaves to sin up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in the past fourth Indiction, the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent of it, be subjected to canonical deposition” - Canon III, Council of Trullo

 

[Seraphim73]

Why is that?

Because the fathers viewed one marriage in a life as the ideal and counted marriage after the death of a spouse as a second marriage. Roman Catholics are often not aware of that fact. Vestiges of that belief still exist even in the Roman Church because if one of the married Latin priests who converted from Protestantism has their wife pass away they are not allowed to marry again.

 

[PRmerger]

“Since our pious and Christian Emperor has addressed this holy and ecumenical council, in order that it might provide for the purity of those who are in the list of the clergy, and who transmit divine things to others, and that they may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of the great God, who is both Offering and High Priest, a sacrifice apprehended by the intelligence: and that it might cleanse away the pollutions wherewith these have been branded by unlawful marriages: now whereas they of the most holy Roman Church purpose to keep the rule of exact perfection, but those who are under the throne of this heaven-protected and royal city keep that of kindness and consideration, so blending both together as our fathers have done, and as the love of God requires, that neither gentleness fall into licence, nor severity into harshness; especially as the fault of ignorance has reached no small number of men, we decree, that those who are involved in a second marriage, and have been slaves to sin up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in the past fourth Indiction, the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent of it, be subjected to canonical deposition” - Canon III, Council of Trullo

This simply restates, in official form, what you said: second marriages are sinful.

Now: what’s the reason for this? Why is it sinful for a priest to re-marry?

 

[Seraphim73]

This simply restates, in official form, what you said: second marriages are sinful.

Now: what’s the reason for this? Why is it sinful for a priest to re-marry?

It says it right at the top of the canon. That ministers have to be of the highest purity. I mean if you don’t know why remarriage is sinful I don’t know what else to tell you.

 

[PRmerger]

Because the fathers viewed one marriage in a life as the ideal and counted marriage after the death of a spouse as a second marriage. Roman Catholics are often not aware of that fact. Vestiges of that belief still exist even in the Roman Church because if one of the married Latin priests who converted from Protestantism has their wife pass away they are not allowed to marry again.

And why is a second marriage sinful?

Here’s an example of what I’m looking for.

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is gravely sinful. Why is it sinful? Because all human life is of infinite worth and dignity and it is not our right to kill an innocent life.

Now, you need to provide a reason why second marriages are sinful for your priests, according to Orthodoxy.

Incidentally, are second marriages sinful for the Orthodox laity as well?

And what’s with the 4th marriage thing? I had never heard that before and my jaw is still on the floor on that one.