S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well it is.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. Okay, then.
So what is it I read about 4th marriages being impermissible?
Often excommunicated? When are they not?
P
PRmerger
Guest
And now how is it again that you believe the Orthodox priest can assist in counseling a divorced and re-married couple if he has never been divorced and re-married?
That’s a bit confusing to me, too.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
That’s a canonical regulation.
If there is no clear guilty party there may be no excommunication. But if for example the man left the wife for another woman the man would be excommunicated but the woman would not.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
On October 17 I made a little prediction:
To those who think the Synod will end with a firm and unambiguous reaffirmation of traditional Church teaching on these issues, my best advice is: brace yourselves.
Now, I’ll make another. Regardless of the conservative backlash, and regardless of the public protests of prelates including Cardinals, Communion for remarried divorcees who have not and will not regularise their situation will be permitted, by Rome, in about a year from now. It’s all in the final relatio:
A little clear thinking is needed here.
First, this text was included, by a decision of the Pope, in the final document even though it did not get the 2/3 majority technically required to pass. The fact that the votes for each paragraph were made public - also by a decision of the Pope - reveals that a substantial majority of the Synod voted in favour of it. It is almost certain that this substantial majority will reach 2/3 in the next Synod, and it probably doesn’t matter if it doesn’t. It will still go through.
Secondly, this speaks of remarried couples who do ***not ***abstain from sexual relations. The little bit about moral responsibility being ‘diminished or nullified’ is inserted for their benefit.
Thirdly, despite being apparently very limited in application, the permission to receive Communion will have a broad scope. If you have children you are automatically in, but you do not ***have ***to have children to qualify:
Others expressed a welcoming to the Eucharistic table that was not general, in certain particular situations and with strict conditions, **especially ** [but not exclusively] in what concerns irreversible cases [when would a second marriage not be considered ‘irreversible’?] and related to moral obligations towards children
What makes this issue a unique one for Catholics is that, for the first time, they will be confronted with a decision from Rome that they simply cannot in conscience accept. Giving the Blessed Sacrament to a couple who are in a state of ongoing sin adds up to sacrilege. The Church has never taught and can never teach otherwise. In this instance the perennial teaching of the Church is not in fact being directly altered; what is changing is the practice that implements it.
So what are faithful Catholics to do? By ‘faithful Catholics’ I mean Catholics who uphold in its entirety the teaching of the Church ***and ***submit to the direction of the hierarchy inasmuch as that hierarchy is in union with the Pope. Above all else they will not criticise or disobey the Pope. It has worked up until now, but in a year’s time the entire ball game changes. What are faithful Catholics to do? This is not baiting. It is a genuine question.
To those who think the Synod will end with a firm and unambiguous reaffirmation of traditional Church teaching on these issues, my best advice is: brace yourselves.
Now, I’ll make another. Regardless of the conservative backlash, and regardless of the public protests of prelates including Cardinals, Communion for remarried divorcees who have not and will not regularise their situation will be permitted, by Rome, in about a year from now. It’s all in the final relatio:
- The possibility of the divorced and remarried having access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist was considered. Several Synod fathers insisted in favour of the current discipline, by virtue of the fundamental rapport between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church, and her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Others expressed a welcoming to the Eucharistic table that was not general, in certain particular situations and with strict conditions, especially in what concerns irreversible cases and related to moral obligations towards children who would endure unjust sufferings. The eventual access to the sacraments should be preceded by an accompanying penance under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop. The question must be further studied, bearing in mind the distinction between the objective situation of sin and extenuating circumstances, given that “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified” by diverse “psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735)
A little clear thinking is needed here.
First, this text was included, by a decision of the Pope, in the final document even though it did not get the 2/3 majority technically required to pass. The fact that the votes for each paragraph were made public - also by a decision of the Pope - reveals that a substantial majority of the Synod voted in favour of it. It is almost certain that this substantial majority will reach 2/3 in the next Synod, and it probably doesn’t matter if it doesn’t. It will still go through.
Secondly, this speaks of remarried couples who do ***not ***abstain from sexual relations. The little bit about moral responsibility being ‘diminished or nullified’ is inserted for their benefit.
Thirdly, despite being apparently very limited in application, the permission to receive Communion will have a broad scope. If you have children you are automatically in, but you do not ***have ***to have children to qualify:
Others expressed a welcoming to the Eucharistic table that was not general, in certain particular situations and with strict conditions, **especially ** [but not exclusively] in what concerns irreversible cases [when would a second marriage not be considered ‘irreversible’?] and related to moral obligations towards children
What makes this issue a unique one for Catholics is that, for the first time, they will be confronted with a decision from Rome that they simply cannot in conscience accept. Giving the Blessed Sacrament to a couple who are in a state of ongoing sin adds up to sacrilege. The Church has never taught and can never teach otherwise. In this instance the perennial teaching of the Church is not in fact being directly altered; what is changing is the practice that implements it.
So what are faithful Catholics to do? By ‘faithful Catholics’ I mean Catholics who uphold in its entirety the teaching of the Church ***and ***submit to the direction of the hierarchy inasmuch as that hierarchy is in union with the Pope. Above all else they will not criticise or disobey the Pope. It has worked up until now, but in a year’s time the entire ball game changes. What are faithful Catholics to do? This is not baiting. It is a genuine question.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
It shouldn’t be. You can’t divorce unless you are married. The married priest has experiences a celibate one doesn’t and of course vice versa. I wouldn’t recommend someone who is discerning monasticism to go to a married priest. They would be better served by a monk. Don’t you think people discerning the priesthood should speak with a priest? It’s just a truism that experience is often better than no experience.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I couldn’t answer “yes” or “no”.
But I’m guessing as follows:
But I am leery of individual clerics exercising whatever they subjectively think of as “pastoral care” in (in effect) putting their blessing on divorce.
But I’m guessing as follows:
- Faithful Catholics will have even less trust in the clergy than now, (seriously eroded already) but will continue to practice their faith as best they know how.
- Their children will be less likely to be faithful to the teachings of the Church generally, or may be more inclined than now to go to evangelical sects for what they perceive as certitudes. (a serious problem already)
- Dissident clergy will feel themselves empowered to depart even more from the traditional teachings of the Church, and not only in this particular way.
But I am leery of individual clerics exercising whatever they subjectively think of as “pastoral care” in (in effect) putting their blessing on divorce.
M
muffindell
Guest
Valid marriage, what does this mean? You are either married or not, I think all the witnesses would agree that they saw you get married, that they heard all the vows, hell you even have the marriage certificate to prove it; then come the children to prove you consummated the marriage. So how is none of this a ‘valid marriage’?
E
Ender
Guest
There seems to be a difference of opinion about this.The controversy was rekindled in October this year when the Archdiocese of Freiburg released a document laying out plans to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion if they promised to enter “a new moral responsibility” with their new spouse.
lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-kasper-says-church-will-soon-give-communion-to-divorced-remarried
This would assuredly require doctrinal changes. Regardless of Cardinal Kasper’s comments, this is the issue most believe the synod is addressing. Nor is this concern caused simply by media hoopla; there are quite a number of cardinals alarmed about the doctrinal implications of his comments.
Ender
M
McCall1981
Guest
This is exactly the issue, both sides say doctrine can’t change.
Kasper’s side says his proposal doesn’t change the doctrine, and that is why it’s ok.
The opposition says it does (or effectively does) change doctrine, and that’s why it’s not ok.
Kasper saying those things does not prove anything, it’s simply his side of the argument.
E
Ender
Guest
What indeed? Such an outcome seems inconceivable even if it seems likely. You have to wonder if the cardinals really understand the implication of such an action. I guess we’ll find out if the church really is protected from serious error.
Ender
P
PRmerger
Guest
And what is the apologia for this? What is good with 3 but bad with 4 marriages?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well there’s nothing “good” about 2. Will you please stop insinuating that we don’t have any problem with remarriage.
The idea is if a person continues to commit the sin then they haven’t shown fruits of repentance. It’s a disciplinary canon just like any other. It’s entirely within the bishop’s authority to deny even a second marriage if he feels there is no repentance.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.Well there’s nothing “good” about 2. Will you please stop insinuating that we don’t have any problem with remarriage.
Although you do have to give me time to re-calibrate. I had to come to this understanding of the Orthodox position only after pulling your teeth. You were quite reluctant, peculiarly, to give me the teaching.
Still waiting for why 4 is the impermissible shibboleth.
What is the rationale for 4? Where did they come up with this number?
W
weller2
Guest
You know, after 12 years of Catholic education and over 20 years of attending Mass every week, my (supposed) ignorance is not entirely my fault
Speaking of Pauline epistles, would you mind explaining why the Catholic Church chooses to appoint bishops who DON’T meet explicit requirements for the position laid out in 1 Timothy? Because my impression is that we wouldn’t be having this conversation if the Catholic Church followed Paul’s advice.
Over here? If parties can reach an out-of-court agreement, then just a $200 filing fee. Of course, if they want to put up a fight, then it is a different story…
P
PRmerger
Guest
It can not be a valid marriage if the 2 never became 1. That happens ontologically.
So one’s appearance can belie the reality.
Just like a woman “priest” can say the words of consecration over a wafer, and it may appear as if she did everything right to confect transubstantiation, but nothing changed in the substance of the bread and wine ontologically, in reality.
W
weller2
Guest
Common sense. You know, in the military they have this saying:
If it happens once - it’s an accident.
If it happens twice - it’s a concidence.
If it happens three times - it’s a hostile action (sabotage).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh, no doubt.You know, after 12 years of Catholic education and over 20 years of attending Mass every week, my (supposed) ignorance is not entirely my fault
I have never been bereft in maintaining that the Church has done an abysmal job in providing nourishing catechesis for her flock.
However, at some point, you need to take the bull by the horns and catechize yourself.
It’s clear you haven’t quite done your homework yet.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ummm…that would mean that the Orthodox should be saying 3 marriages are impermissible.
Right?
Except that’s not their teaching.
W
weller2
Guest
Nope, it’s exactly as I said:
First divorce - accident.
Second divorce - coincidence.
Third divorce - sabotage.
So, no fourth marriage for you.
- Status