Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[Brendan]

I’m with you. I understand the teaching. I’m simply saying that is not Christ’s teaching as St Paul makes clear himself (I, not the Lord). What I still don’t understand is if St Paul can make an exception to what Christ said why can’t the Church? One person said it was because Paul had greater authority as a writer of Scripture. Of course there was no way he could know what he was writing would become Scripture. So when he made the exception he thought he was using his Apostolic authority.

If you are referring to me, what I said was that GOD has a greater authority, and the Word of Scripture are that of God.

And it still does not matter of St. Paul knew that what he was writing were the teachings of the Holy Spirit, the Scripture he wrote is not authoritative due to an human authority that St Paul possessed, but by the Authority of God Himself.

The exception came, by definition, from the Holy Spirit. It is HIS exception, not St. Paul’s.

 

[Seraphim73]

Christ was laying down the rules for Sacramental Marriage.

St. Paul (like the other Apostles) was gifted by The Holy Spirit to speak/teach The Truth of Jesus Christ.

A Sacramental Marriage cannot be broken, except for death.

If you receive communion while living in sin, it’s the sin of scandal and it’s also sacrilege.

Now, if you want to make a theological argument that schism and/or apostasy are worse sins than scandal and sacrilege, then I’m all eyes and ears.

Refraining from the Sacraments when living in sin (even if only potential) protects us from sacrilege. And Protestants don’t even believe in the Sacraments, so someone leaving the Church for Protestantism makes even less sense.

Really, what it comes down to is Faith. Does the divorced person believe what the Church teaches or not. If they believe in the Sacraments, and that 1 or 2 divorces are ok, then they should become Eastern Orthodox. If they don’t believe in the sins of sacrilege and scandal; become a Protestant.

And if you say that Catholics have done a terrible job of teaching The Faith in the West, I will agree 110%

But Christ did not say that. St Paul makes that clear himself. None of the people Christ was speaking to were in sacramental marriages as defined today. All of the exposition on sacramental marriages and natural marriages were later theological constructs.

 

[Seraphim73]

If you are referring to me, what I said was that GOD has a greater authority, and the Word of Scripture are that of God.

And it still does not matter of St. Paul knew that what he was writing were the teachings of the Holy Spirit, the Scripture he wrote is not authoritative due to an human authority that St Paul possessed, but by the Authority of God Himself.

The exception came, by definition, from the Holy Spirit. It is HIS exception, not St. Paul’s.

But the Holy Spirit guides the bishops as well. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church no?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

But the Holy Spirit guides the bishops as well. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church no?

Is the Church a democracy?

 

[Brendan]

But the Holy Spirit guides the bishops as well. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church no?

The Holy Spirit guides the bishops to make clear what has already been taught, not to create new teachings.

Nicaea is a create example, the Council did not create the truth of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, but make it more expressly clear. The Holy Spirit guiide the bishops of NIcaea, not in new teachings, but to clearly and infallibly express what had already been given by God to the Apostles.

A new Council cannot come and declare that the there are now Four Divine Persons, because even a Council can only make clear what has been revealed, not create new revelations.

Likewise, bishops cannot change what has been revealed by God. Bishops cannot undo what has been revealed in Scripture, nor can they write new Scripture. All a bishop (or Council of Bishops) can do is teach more clearly what has already been revealed. No more and no less.

 

[Carlan]

Why are these Cardinals coming out like this.

I mean Burke and Kasper as well.

It’s like the Cardinals are campaigning or something. They should be keeping their discussions under wraps and demonstrate a sense of common thought and subjection to the Pope.

What the Cardinals are talking about is frankly none of the layman’s business IMO. We just need to know what they come up with and then assent to it- once the Pope gives the final word.

I am a real fan of centralized power in the papacy.

I agree with you. Peace, Carlan

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Do you think only people who’ve been molested as a child can be counselors for victims of child molestation?

Also, why do you draw the line so broadly as “they just had to be married” in order to be able to counsel married parishioners?

Wouldn’t it be far, far better to make a condition: the priest must have children if the couple has children.

And better yet: the priest must have been a Muslim convert if he’s counseling Muslim converts.

Why do you not make this assertion?

 

[Seraphim73]

Is the Church a democracy?

I don’t know. Your cardinals just voted at a synod so you tell me.

 

[Seraphim73]

Do you think only people who’ve been molested as a child can be counselors for victims of child molestation?

Also, why do you draw the line so broadly as “they just had to be married” in order to be able to counsel married parishioners?

Wouldn’t it be far, far better to make a condition: the priest must have children if the couple has children.

And better yet: the priest must have been a Muslim convert if he’s counseling Muslim converts.

Why do you not make this assertion?

Do you not see any value at all in experience?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know. Your cardinals just voted at a synod so you tell me.

The Catholic answer is: no, the Church is not a democracy. Voting in a synod is no more a democracy (although it is utilizing democratic principles), than reading the astrology column in a newspaper an example of necromancy.

Not sure what Orthodoxy’s answer is to the question.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you not see any value at all in experience?

Could you please answer my questions first?

I am interested in drawing the bigger picture for you and helping you connect the dots. It appears that you are already seeing the picture, albeit vaguely, which is why you keep refusing to answer those questions.

And then I will answer yours (although I already did: I said that it may give someone more empathy, but empathy isn’t required for giving good, solid counseling.)

 

[Seraphim73]

Could you please answer my questions first?

I am interested in drawing the bigger picture for you and helping you connect the dots. It appears that you are already seeing the picture, albeit vaguely, which is why you keep refusing to answer those questions.

And then I will answer yours (although I already did: I said that it may give someone more empathy, but empathy isn’t required for giving good, solid counseling.)

I never said it was required. I said it was helpful, good, beneficial, useful. Also my original point was we shouldn’t make blanket statements about people in situations we have never been in, especially really difficult ones such as a divorce.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t know. Your cardinals just voted at a synod so you tell me.

Ok, I will tell you. The bishops at the synod could have voted 100 percent that we must walk on our hands to Mass on the 30th of February and it would not have changed a thing.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Catholic answer is: no, the Church is not a democracy. Voting in a synod is no more a democracy (although it is utilizing democratic principles), than reading the astrology column in a newspaper an example of necromancy.

Not sure what Orthodoxy’s answer is to the question.

It would be the same.

 

[PRmerger]

I never said it was required.

Excellent. We are agreed, then.

Being married is not required to help counsel someone who’s having marital difficulties.

Having been raped is not required to help counsel someone who’s been raped.

Also my original point was we shouldn’t make blanket statements about people in situations we have never been in, especially really difficult ones such as a divorce.

Can you give an example of a “blanket statement” that’s been made here on the CAFs?

(Or were you talking about the rather blatant “blanket statement” made by Our Lord regarding divorce and re-marriage? That’s pretty sweeping and general, don’t you think?
Do you object to Christ doing this, or are you ok with Him making “blanket statements” about situations that he didn’t experience, either?)

 

[Rence]

I don’t know. Your cardinals just voted at a synod so you tell me.

 

[Rence]

I never said it was required. I said it was helpful, good, beneficial, useful. Also my original point was we shouldn’t make blanket statements about people in situations we have never been in, especially really difficult ones such as a divorce.

I agree with the above. I’m glad that Bishops want to help those who are divorced and remarried. Since they obviously can’t just allow divorced and remarried people to have Communion, I hope they help them to obtain annulments by more careful consideration to each person’s unique circumstances. I think they’re doing a better job now than they used to. But reaching out more carefully would be even better.

 

[Seraphim73]

Excellent. We are agreed, then.

Being married is not required to help counsel someone who’s having marital difficulties.

Having been raped is not required to help counsel someone who’s been raped.

Can you give an example of a “blanket statement” that’s been made here on the CAFs?

(Or were you talking about the rather blatant “blanket statement” made by Our Lord regarding divorce and re-marriage? That’s pretty sweeping and general, don’t you think?
Do you object to Christ doing this, or are you ok with Him making “blanket statements” about situations that he didn’t experience, either?)

This is why we can’t have a discussion. If you ask question like do I “object to Christ” then this isn’t going anywhere. You have a good night and hopefully we can talk on another thread.

 

[FollowChrist34]

(Or were you talking about the rather blatant “blanket statement” made by Our Lord regarding divorce and re-marriage? That’s pretty sweeping and general, don’t you think? Do you object to Christ doing this, or are you ok with Him making “blanket statements” about situations that he didn’t experience, either?)

:extrahappy:

 

[PRmerger]

This is why we can’t have a discussion. If you ask question like do I “object to Christ” then this isn’t going anywhere. You have a good night and hopefully we can talk on another thread.

I have planted the seed.

You are seeing the incoherence of your position and are trying to extricate yourself from this.

Would that you would stay and be able to connect the dots to embracing a more coherent picture.