Two more cardinals back Communion for divorced and remarried

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Again, to re-state the problem with your assertion: if you are taking Paul’s message to mean: all bishops must be married…

then what do you say about Jesus and Paul, who were not married? Would they not be permitted to be Shepherds in your church?
Click to expand...
It’s very simple. Neither Jesus nor Paul were bishops. Both were travelling preachers. Episcopacy and the related organizational structure is a human invention.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
She has done nothg wrong until she “finds another man” then oops, she has sinned.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, we have a way to deal with that. Confess, do a penance, go and sin no more.

Adultery is a serious sin, but c’mon, the sanction for remarriage is currently worse than sanction for murder.
 
weller2 said:
Fortunately, we have a way to deal with that. Confess, do a penance, go and sin no more.

Adultery is a serious sin, but c’mon, the sanction for remarriage is currently worse than sanction for murder.
Click to expand...
No, it is the same as all other grave sins. Confess, do a penance, go and sin no more.

What if I as a man left my wife because I loved another man, and we adoped children, and had a family. Does it change my repentance or sin no more factor just because “Waaaah, But I looooove him…”?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
No, it is the same as all other grave sins. Confess, do a penance, go and sin no more.

What if I as a man left my wife because I loved another man, and we adoped children, and had a family. Does it change my repentance or sin no more factor just because “Waaaah, But I looooove him…”?
Click to expand...
When you married your wife, did you swear before God that you will not desert her? If so, you have violated your oath when you have left her and that is when you have sinned.

The Catholic Church has developed a rather strange notion that violating the marriage oath by deserting your partner is OK, but remarrying later is a big no-no. When in fact it’s the former which does damage (and defies God) and not the latter.
 
weller2 said:
When you married your wife, did you swear before God that you will not desert her? If so, you have violated your oath when you have left her and that is when you have sinned.

The Catholic Church has developed a rather strange notion that violating the marriage oath by deserting your partner is OK, but remarrying later is a big no-no. When in fact it’s the former which does damage (and defies God) and not the latter.
Click to expand...
You are confusing a secular civil matter with a sacrament.
 
I found this nice, readable little article summarizing the teaching and practices of the early Church regarding divorce and remarriage. Just in case anyone is interested. (I don’t know a lot about it.)

ewtn.com/library/Marriage/ANTDIVRC.HTM
Actually, contrary to what is said over and over, the documentation we have at hand does not allow us to ignore or to minimize the great number of witnesses that confirm the Church’s constant attitude on the indissolubility of marriage. Thus one cannot affirm as an indisputable fact the existence of an ancient “practice” that was less severe or restrictive than the Church’s attitude today towards the “divorced and remarried”.
Click to expand...
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
It would be morally wrong to desert someone. But protecting yourself from harm or violence or death would be ok.
Click to expand...
I’d say that’s still desertion, but there are strong extenuating circumstances which will lessen or entirely eliminate culpability. You cannot be reasonably expected to let someone kill you.

I’d also argue that spousal abuse voids the oath so you’re no longer bound by it anyway.
 
PRmerger said:
Yep.

“Cafeteria Catholics: Creating a god after their own image, rather than conforming to what has been given, once for all, to the saints, since 30 AD!”
Click to expand...
Still what you told me about Catholics being bound to accepting Communion for remarried divorcees should the Pope go in that direction, and what Ender posted, are opposite. But I see the current poll gap is narrowing at the moment 53% would still not accept though and 47 would.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Still what you told me about Catholics being bound to accepting Communion for remarried divorcees should the Pope go in that direction, and what Ender posted, are opposite. But I see the current poll gap is narrowing at the moment 53% would still not accept though and 47 would.
Click to expand...
If a person does not feel bound to give assent to what the Church has bound on earth…that changes things, how?

You have done this. What do you say about yourself divorcing yourself from what the Church has bound?
 
weller2 said:
The fact is however is that Paul preached non-circumcision without prior authorization to do so, and the Council of Jerusalem had to be called to deal with this “heresy”. Yes, at Paul accepted Peter’s primacy, but also Peter et.al. accepted Paul’s fait accompli. Something like that is completely unthinkable in later Church – see e.g. Cyril and Methodius.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would paul wait for permission to preach the REVEALED truth he received from God? You realize Paul was an apostle? And the freedom from the requirements of the old covenant was not an issue of church discipline but a matter of DOCTRINE as revealed in the New Covenant. The heresy was with the judaizers. those who insisted that circumcision was required. It is unthinkable in later times because the church of later years was not an Apostle. they were to teach the doctrine of the apostles not issue new revelations.
 
weller2 said:
It’s very simple. Neither Jesus nor Paul were bishops. Both were travelling preachers. Episcopacy and the related organizational structure is a human invention.
Click to expand...
Why is it in the church of Apostles then, recorded in Bible? If it was created by apostles, who are you to decide it was human rather than divine? How do you pick which ones of apostolic actions were human and which ones were divine?:confused:
 
weller2 said:
When you married your wife, did you swear before God that you will not desert her? If so, you have violated your oath when you have left her and that is when you have sinned.

The Catholic Church has developed a rather strange notion that violating the marriage oath by deserting your partner is OK, but remarrying later is a big no-no. When in fact it’s the former which does damage (and defies God) and not the latter.
Click to expand...
You are making many strange statements.

In what way is the church sanction for murder less than sanction for adultery?:confused: are you reading the same catechism we all are reading?

In what way is divorce “OK” in catholic church???:confused::confused::confused: again, are you reading same catechism we all are reading?

How can you say the “latter” (remarriage) does no damage or defy God when it is God who is calling it adultery??:confused: Does adultery do no damage or defy God?

I hope you answer these questions.
 
PRmerger said:
If a person does not feel bound to give assent to what the Church has bound on earth…that changes things, how?

You have done this. What do you say about yourself divorcing yourself from what the Church has bound?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand what it means to loose or bind, because it assuredly does not mean the church has the authority to decide what it thinks should or should not be moral. I believe what it means is that the church - the clergy - has the right to forgive or not forgive individual sins.

I don’t believe the church will readmit the divorced and remarried to communion because she lacks the authority to do so. She cannot change those doctrines and it is not doctrinally possible for them to receive.I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”. (JPII, Ecclesia de Eucharistia)
Ender
 
PRmerger said:
If a person does not feel bound to give assent to what the Church has bound on earth…that changes things, how?

You have done this. What do you say about yourself divorcing yourself from what the Church has bound?
Click to expand...
Well I’m at least honest about it and what I say about myself is I’m not a practicing Catholic. It is interesting the debate and differences on any number of topics though among those who profess to be faithful.
 
After my first wife committed adultery for the second time I divorced her. She remarried and subsequently divorced again. I waited for 6 years to find the right woman to come along and I married her. However, I married her in a CE church which the RC church does not recognise. Does this mean that I can still have HC like I did before we were married?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top