Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

[One_point]

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.

Regardless. the early church mustve been wrong because we have it in scripture the words of an apostle saying there is no sin in rmarrying again after death of spouse. When you have an apostle on one side and the early church practice on the other, the former wins every time.

 

[Seraphim73]

Regardless. the early church mustve been wrong because we have it in scripture the words of an apostle saying there is no sin in rmarrying again after death of spouse. When you have an apostle on one side and the early church practice on the other, the former wins every time.

That’s a consistent answer. The fact still stands there was a time when it wasn’t considered abhorrent to doctrine. Of course you can read that how you will.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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

You think St Paul was loosing a bind that Jesus instituted in Paul’s lifetime? Where was the Pope in all of this?

 

[weller2]

Let’s just be clear: you are saying that according to Scripture a bishop must be married?

Well, I’m waiting for your alternative explanation of the passage

 

[Seraphim73]

You think St Paul was loosing a bind that Jesus instituted in Paul’s lifetime? Where was the Pope in all of this?

Well he said quite clearly “I, not the Lord.”

 

[phil19034]

That’s a consistent answer. The fact still stands there was a time when it wasn’t considered abhorrent to doctrine. Of course you can read that how you will.

if what you say is completely true, it was NOT a change in DOCTRINE, it would have been a change in DISCIPLINE. It’s okay for discipline to be tougher than Doctrine and Dogma. But it’s bad if discipline is more lax than Doctrine & Dogma.

A discipline of the Church used to be that one had to fast from midnight until after Sunday Mass. That changed when the Church realized how many people were passing out, etc. from low blood sugar. It then changed to 3 hours and then to 1 hour. But this change still doesn’t change the teaching surrounding the need to prepare oneself for reception of Holy Communion.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I’m waiting for your alternative explanation of the passage

Well, according to your requirement, St. Paul wouldn’t be allowed to be a shepherd (unless you have some evidence that he was married)?

Heck, in your church even Jesus wouldn’t be able to be permitted to be a Shepherd.

You’re hard core, aren’t you?

 

[phil19034]

Well, I’m waiting for your alternative explanation of the passage

It means that a Bishop cannot have been married more than once. We actually have at least one married Bishop in the Catholic Church during the 20th century. He was ordinated a Bishop by an ex-communicated Bishop. His name: Salomão Barbosa Ferraz of Brazil.

When he converted to the Catholic Church, he was a valid Bishop. He was never given his own diocese (he remained an Auxiliary Bishop), but he was a Bishop. He even participated in Vatican II and had seven children. Had he been married twice, his ordination many not have been valid.

 

[Seraphim73]

if what you say is completely true, it was NOT a change in DOCTRINE, it would have been a change in DISCIPLINE. It’s okay for discipline to be tougher than Doctrine and Dogma. But it’s bad if discipline is more lax than Doctrine & Dogma.

I agree that the issue of Communion for the remarried should be considered a discipline and one that could be relaxed if thought prudent.

 

[JimG]

I agree that the issue of Communion for the remarried should be considered a discipline and one that could be relaxed if thought prudent.

You are campaigning hard for acceptance of the Eastern Orthodox view, but it’s not going to happen. Cardinal O’Malley just said in a recent interview: “The Church will not change her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.”

 

[Seraphim73]

You are campaigning hard for acceptance of the Eastern Orthodox view, but it’s not going to happen. Cardinal O’Malley just said in a recent interview: “The Church will not change her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.”

The Catholic bishops can do whatever they want to do. What I’m doing is pointing out what I see as inconsistencies and trying to show that the world won’t end if this discipline is relaxed.

 

[muffindell]

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.

Now then, which God are we talking about or are we talking about Jesus?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The Catholic bishops can do whatever they want to do. What I’m doing is pointing out what I see as inconsistencies and trying to show that the world won’t end if this discipline is relaxed.

Are you purposely omitting the papacy’s role here? or just laboring under the false assumption the church runs like congress?

 

[pnewton]

There are several bishops who do believe it is within the ability to change this matter, that is, it is a discipline. No pope has made a statement like that of St. John Paul did about women’s ordination, only in reference to this issue. The possibility of changing communion for the divorced and remarried has not been defined, so that the Catholic Church has no authority in this matter. If it ever is, that will end the debate.

Those that believe this cannot change take the principle that one cannot receive unworthily to mean one can not receive if they have an unconfessed grave sin. This could be changed, in my opinion, to an unconfessed mortal sin, as it is the heart that is worthy or unworthy, and one does not need to be immaculate to receive communion. Whether someone here agrees are disagrees is not relevant. I do not know that the bishops are unified on this. I do know some in the synod think this change could be made without heresy.

And we do have a precedent in Peter. The Petrine Privilege is not proof that change is possible, but it is evidence.

 

[weller2]

Well, according to your requirement, St. Paul wouldn’t be allowed to be a shepherd (unless you have some evidence that he was married)?

Heck, in your church even Jesus wouldn’t be able to be permitted to be a Shepherd.

It’s rather funny that you make this argument, because neither Paul nor Jesus would be allowed leadership position in today’s Church. For starters, neither of them had validly received Holy Orders (yes – the notion is absurd). As for Paul, he was at odds with Peter most of the time over doctrinal matters – which, in today’s church, would incur him a latae excommunication. As for Jesus, an interesting thought exercise is to read his rant against the Pharisses (Matthew 23) and imagine that it is directed at present day Catholic hierarchy. Any priest delivering such rant today would be faced with a gag order at minimum.

Oh, by the way, and if you believe that Jesus was not married, then you have to explain how come that Mary of Magdala was just hanging around with him all the time and none of his opponents thought of accusing him of having an illicit relationship. And they were going to great lengths to find a charge which would stick. You think they would pass on something like that?

Anyway, back to 1 Timothy. It’s rather amusing that you still miss the point of the passage, even after I have quoted you the most important verse. The point the author (Paul?) makes is this: a bishop must be someone who is above reproach and naturally commands authority. First, he gives a listing of vices which diqualify from the job, such as alcoholism, greed, unchastity etc. (By the way – when was the last time you saw a bishop deposed for any of these?). He also says that the candidate must be – literally – a man of one woman.

Saying that a man of one woman means married no more than once is really stretching the meaning of the text. First, this is first century (Timothy died 97AD), so the notion of sacramental marriage as existing today is has not really yet solidified. Second, and more importantly, this is the church in Ephesus. A Greek city, so the Christian community is mostly pagan – so you can bet that there were some of the converted who practiced polygamy. You can also bet that some where divorced and remarried.

But, even if we were to go with your interpretation (married no more than once) then then the author still drives the point home in verse 4-5:

He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?

Indeed, how? The point is not really how many times you were married. The point is that if you have never demonstrated your skill in managing a family, you should never be entrusted management of the church.

The Catholic Church chose to ignore this advice, and look at the shape it is in.

You’re hard core, aren’t you?

Sure, because the early saints actually were hard core.

Simon Peter was running a respectable fishing company, sold it, went to follow Jesus, ended on the cross himself. Respect.

Paul was a Roman citizen, Pharizee, educated – basically as elite as you can get. Spent years touring the world on his own dime to teach about Jesus, only to be finally beheaded by Romans. Respect.

Matthew the tax collector – the guy has abandoned a government job to follow Jesus. He could have become very powerful, or rich (or both) if he simply chose his career. Respect.

And who are the shepherds nowadays? If you can only make it through the five years of seminar, then you have job, food, and board guaranteed for life. If you’re lucky enough, and get a job in curia, then after 20-30 years of pushing papers you will be eventually made a bishop, provided of course that you are well versed in office politics. All that in an economy where normal people fear that tomorrow they will not be able to feed their family if their boss has a bad day… What is it, exactly, about today’s shepherds that would naturally command respect?

So, basically. If the Church thought it is fine to redefine scriptural commands on episcopacy (much to its own detriment), then what’s exactly keeping it from redefining marriage?

 

[Brendan]

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

So is it your claim, then that the prohibition on clergy having more than one wife is a matter of binding and loosing,

So a bishop COULD, in your mind, unbind himself from the prohibitions, and enter into marriage?

 

[Brendan]

It’s rather funny that you make this argument, because neither Paul nor Jesus would be allowed leadership position in today’s Church. For starters, neither of them had validly received Holy Orders (yes – the notion is absurd).

Actually, Christ already HAS a leadership position in the Church, He is the Head of it. The Pope is simply his Vicar.

Also, Paul recieved ordination from Peter, when he sought him out in Jersalem.

As for Paul, he was at odds with Peter most of the time over doctrinal matters – which, in today’s church, would incur him a latae excommunication.

Interestingly enough, no. Paul certainly accepted Peter’s judgement at the Council of Jersalem.

As for Jesus, an interesting thought exercise is to read his rant against the Pharisses (Matthew 23) and imagine that it is directed at present day Catholic hierarchy.

One can imagine it, in much the same way one can imagine reading it to Mother Theresa. It would a lie of the greatest order.

Any priest delivering such rant today would be faced with a gag order at minimum

.

And rightly so, priests should not be telling lies.

Oh, by the way, and if you believe that Jesus was not married, then you have to explain how come that Mary of Magdala was just hanging around with him all the time and none of his opponents thought of accusing him of having an illicit relationship. And they were going to great lengths to find a charge which would stick. You think they would pass on something like that?

Certainly, because there was no proof of any illicit relationship either. The Sanhedrin had no prohibition on chaste relationships between men and women

Indeed, how? The point is not really how many times you were married. The point is that if you have never demonstrated your skill in managing a family, you should never be entrusted management of the church.

The Church IS a family.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So is it your claim, then that the prohibition on clergy having more than one wife is a matter of binding and loosing,

So a bishop COULD, in your mind, unbind himself from the prohibitions, and enter into marriage?

This is a good point. Bishops conferences have been given power over many aspects of the “practices” of the faith. From CITH to postures, to sacrament prep and administration. If we were not debating actual doctrine and faith, each bishop could make it up on his own. Germany could be a free for all! The fact is that it is up to the Pope, that is why we have a Pope. And no percentage of bishops, cardinals, or journalists can supplant that power.
Ask the Bishops in Canada in the 60s and 70s about contraception…
Nope.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There are several bishops who do believe it is within the ability to change this matter, that is, it is a discipline. No pope has made a statement like that of St. John Paul did about women’s ordination, only in reference to this issue. The possibility of changing communion for the divorced and remarried has not been defined, so that the Catholic Church has no authority in this matter. If it ever is, that will end the debate.

Those that believe this cannot change take the principle that one cannot receive unworthily to mean one can not receive if they have an unconfessed grave sin. This could be changed, in my opinion, to an unconfessed mortal sin, as it is the heart that is worthy or unworthy, and one does not need to be immaculate to receive communion. Whether someone here agrees are disagrees is not relevant. I do not know that the bishops are unified on this. I do know some in the synod think this change could be made without heresy.

And we do have a precedent in Peter. The Petrine Privilege is not proof that change is possible, but it is evidence.

I think some of those things are unchangeable. And I believe this debate about these issues to be fruitless. But we have to do it I guess. I can tell you this. I would lose my faith if some radical changes happen that are being proposed by at least the media. Gone…

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Allow me please to share my humble opinion.

I think that in the case of an aggrieved spouse, the aggrieved should be allowed to remarry and receive Communion.

Suppose, for example, a man has an extramarital affair and divorces his wife so he can marry his mistress. I do not think that the (now ex-) wife should be ostracized when she has done nothing wrong. If, in time, she finds another man who she wants to marry why should she be denied Communion and be punished for the sins of her ex-husband?

My :twocents: