Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[Justin_Swanton]

I’ve read over that bolded part several times, and it still makes no sense to me. It seems to put forth a lot of words concerning “certain situations,” and “with strict conditions,” that the existence of a presumed valid prior marriage may be disregarded for pastoral reasons.

Strict conditions or certain situations nothwithstanding, that simply opens the door to widespread Catholic divorce and will encourage it, while confusing marriage doctrine to the point of incomprehensibility.

I posted on this earlier. I’m going to be lazy and just reproduce it here:

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.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sadly, this is true.

You say sadly that the CC makes pastoral mistakes. And I have people telling me they would not have to accept Communion for remarried divorcees while you told me otherwise here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12429502&postcount=82

What’s up with that? Just Cafeteria Catholics too depending on what it is they don’t like?

 

[Seraphim73]

Wonder who came up with that little gem

I don’t know when you started teaching the remarried could never receive Communion. You allowed it for at least 600 years.

 

[Seraphim73]

He did not make an exception. It is clear he did not regard Christ’s law as applying for unbelievers. To say that he taught “Christ commands X, but I command NOT X” is to accuse the Apostle of a very sinful pride against his Lord. It is a false interpretation.

You can’t just say something doesn’t exist because it fits your world view better. St Paul expanded on what Christ said. There is no way to read it any other way. That is why Paul says, “I, not the Lord.”

 

[Seraphim73]

How can you say it is sinful after death? When St. Paul says a person is free to marry after death and both Jesus and Paul say that marriage only binds for life? There is no sin involved in marrying when one is free to marry and one is free to marry if they have no spouse before God. And one has no spouse before God if their former spouse is dead. Why state it is a sin to do what God has not forbidden? Do you believe St. Paul was in error when he said a woman is free to marry once her husband dies???

In the early Church there was a time when marriage after the death of the spouse was not allowed at all. The principle being you can only be married once. Of course that was eventually relaxed and eventually completely eliminated in the Western Church.

Priests don’t marry because they are already consecrated to the Lord which is prior/superior commitment than marriage. it binds all priests. from those who are married when they are ordained and the celibate. when the spouse dies, that priest is just like the celibate priest with the same comittments. it is not because secon marriages is a sin in itself, it is because a consecratd person is not free to marry at all, whether first or 2nd marriage.

Yes but a man who has been married twice cannot be ordained. That includes the death of a spouse. So if a man’s first wife died and he remarried or if his spouse had been married previously he cannot be ordained.

 

[phil19034]

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.

That’s why I said Christ was laying the foundation for Sacramental marriage. Christ was restoring the natural law.

As an apostle, St. Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit to provide Public Revelation.

Just because something was stated in Scripture by St. Paul instead of Christ doesn’t mean it’s not Divine Law.

 

[phil19034]

I don’t know when you started teaching the remarried could never receive Communion. You allowed it for at least 600 years.

Where is your source? The Church has always taught that one must not receive communion if in a state of mortal (grave, deadly) sin.

Adultery, fornication, sodomy, masturbation, scandal, etc. are all grave sins.

 

[Seraphim73]

Where is your source? The Church has always taught that one must not receive communion if in a state of mortal (grave, deadly) sin.

Adultery, fornication, sodomy, masturbation, scandal, etc. are all grave sins.

Look at the Canons of St Basil (middle 4th century) and the Council of Trullo (late 7th century) for a start. Both prescribes penances for remarriage.

 

[One_point]

You can’t just say something doesn’t exist because it fits your world view better. St Paul expanded on what Christ said. There is no way to read it any other way. That is why Paul says, “I, not the Lord.”

Yes there is another way and in fact the ONLY reasonable way.

Yours: St Paul openly admitted to contradicting Jesus
Ours: St Paul explained that Jesus was referring to a marriage between believers.

Ours takes account of the fact that Jesus did infact establish something new as part of his new way/revelation. Yours has Paul claiming that “*Jesus said A, but you don’t have to listen to him: Listen to me instead.” * Which is plain absurd from a Christian point of view. Where else have apostles deliberately set aside something Jesus taught?

What we have here is an apparent contradiction between the Gospels and St Paul. Ours choses the interpretation that reconciles them. Yours choses the interpretation that does not and in fact that teaches that what Jesus said “Let no man put asunder” St Paul purported IN SCRIPTURE to revoke. Is that not a truly strange proposition?

 

[Ender]

The question is aimed at the high likelihood - in my estimation - of Communion for remarried divorcees being permitted after the next Synod in 2015. This can theoretically happen since Church teaching is not being directly altered, it is rather how that teaching is applied in practice that is changing.

In order for those divorced and remarried to receive communion it seems that one of two things has to happen: either the doctrines are changed or the doctrines are ignored.

In that situation will faithful Catholics accept or reject what will be a disciplinary, not doctrinal, decision by Rome?

I cannot understand how this issue could be considered disciplinary and not doctrinal, and I’d really like for someone to try to explain it.

Ender

 

[Seraphim73]

Yes there is another way and in fact the ONLY reasonable way.

Yours: St Paul openly admitted to contradicting Jesus
Ours: St Paul explained that Jesus was referring to a marriage between believers.

Ours takes account of the fact that Jesus did infact establish something new as part of his new way/revelation. Yours has Paul claiming that “*Jesus said A, but you don’t have to listen to him: Listen to me instead.” *

No there is another. St Paul used his power to bind and loose, the same power the Church has.

 

[Ender]

To obey - which means to give one’s assent to Communion for remarried divorcees who have not regularised their situation - is simply impossible for a Catholic.

This is the conclusion I’ve reached as well.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Both Peter and Paul had the authority after the resurrection. Pope Francis walks in Peter’s shoes and holds the same authority to bind and loose.

It is a mistake to believe the authority to bind and loose confers on the pope (or the Magisterium) the power to create moral law. It doesn’t mean that, a point thoroughly illustrated by JPII’s comments on whether there could be women priests: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” The church proclaims the moral norm; she does not create it.

Ender

 

[One_point]

Both Peter and Paul had the authority after the resurrection. Pope Francis walks in Peter’s shoes and holds the same authority to bind and loose. I have heard no one in the Catholic Church suggest this authority was only to last one generation. The Church is just as apostolic now as then.

I would say the reason nothing else has been added is nothing else has been needed or deemed acceptable. Can that change? That is the question. This century has already seen the acceptance and good of a pluralistic society as enabling a free choice for faith. Humanity does learn a few new things from time to time, some good, some evil. This is precisely why we have active authority, as opposed to our Protestant brothers.

When has the church in 2000 years ever taught that the power to bind and loose includes loosing us from divine law or the ability to alter or change doctrine? I think This here involves an assumption that binding and loosing involves far more than the church claims for herself, loosing people from obedience to divine law. or an assumption that what Paul was doing was invoking the power to bind and loose and not simply teaching on what he saw as reasonable or true from his own judgment.

 

[phil19034]

No there is another. St Paul used his power to bind and loose, the same power the Church has.

The Church does not have the authority to bind or loosen Divine Law. The Church (nor St. Paul) can say “you not longer have to obey the Sixth Commandment.”

Apostles were gifted by the Holy Spirit with the ability to reveal Public Revelation. Public Revelation was “closed” when St. John died. St. Paul didn’t bind or loosen anything.

The Church can only bind & loosen discipline. For example:

1. what days must we fast or abstain on
2. what days on the Liturgical Calendar must be treated as Holy Days of Obligation
3. Dispense the Faithful from obligation and from the sin when not following Church discipline.

One can receive a dispensation from Church discipline, but not Divine Law. I.E. you can receive dispensation from getting married in the Church, but you can’t get a dispensation from breaking the Sixth Commandment.

 

[One_point]

No there is another. St Paul used his power to bind and loose, the same power the Church has.

There is no power to contradict God. That interpretation means the power to bind and loose is the power of disobedience. God has never given that power to anyone, not to the church, not even to Jesus “Not as I will, but as though will” The church is not greater than her master, surely.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Church does not have the authority to bind or loosen Divine Law. The Church (nor St. Paul) can say “you not longer have to obey the Sixth Commandment.”

Apostles were gifted by the Holy Spirit with the ability to reveal Public Revelation. Public Revelation was “closed” when St. John died. St. Paul didn’t bind or loosen anything.

The Church can only bind & loosen discipline. For example:

1. what days must we fast or abstain on
2. what days on the Liturgical Calendar must be treated as Holy Days of Obligation
3. Dispense the Faithful from obligation and from the sin when not following Church discipline.

One can receive a dispensation from Church discipline, but not Divine Law. I.E. you can receive dispensation from getting married in the Church, but you can’t get a dispensation from breaking the Sixth Commandment.

Seemingly many bishops if not a majority don’t see it the way you do. Of course I could be wrong. We shall see.

 

[One_point]

The Church does not have the authority to bind or loosen Divine Law. The Church (nor St. Paul) can say “you not longer have to obey the Sixth Commandment.”

Apostles were gifted by the Holy Spirit with the ability to reveal Public Revelation. Public Revelation was “closed” when St. John died. St. Paul didn’t bind or loosen anything.

The Church can only bind & loosen discipline. For example:

1. what days must we fast or abstain on
2. what days on the Liturgical Calendar must be treated as Holy Days of Obligation
3. Dispense the Faithful from obligation and from the sin when not following Church discipline.

One can receive a dispensation from Church discipline, but not Divine Law. I.E. you can receive dispensation from getting married in the Church, but you can’t get a dispensation from breaking the Sixth Commandment.

Yes! And I would add also the church has power to loosen us from the consequences of our sins once we have repented. For example, when the church gives us indulgence, the church is exercises that Christ-given power. So we have merits of Christ and saints applied to us by this authority. Even when the church anathematizes, or excommunicates, she is exercising that power. but it cannot be that the church has a power to contradict God.

 

[LongingSoul]

I cannot understand how this issue could be considered disciplinary and not doctrinal, and I’d really like for someone to try to explain it.

Ender

That’s what this year of synod discussion is for. If the Pope already knew all the answers he’d have told us already. He said that God is a God of surprises and with the help of the Holy Spirit, an obvious conundrum in the life of today’s Catholic… will hopefully be resolved.

The Pope and numerous significant Clergy members, have stressed continuously that there will be no change to the doctrine that valid sacramental marriage is indissoluble and that there will be no change to the general rule.

 

[One_point]

Seemingly many bishops if not a majority don’t see it the way you do. Of course I could be wrong. We shall see.

That’s not true, because the bishops explanations is based on the idea that these people are not personally fully guilty of their sin. that is not power to loose. its recognition of a state of affairs tht exists independentky of Bishops’ action. the bishops may be completely in error but they are not claiming a power to exempt anyone from divine law. they have explicitly rejected this option by declaring remarriage an impossibility.